CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
If corporations were mandated to buy food for their employees, and one of the mandated foods was bacon, would it be wrong for a Jewish company to not cover Bacon?
Hobby Lobby Triumphs over its minion workers
- Thread starter Archbob
- Start date
I have never noticed a religion box when registering corporations. Is there a gender box? Can you forbid same sex mergers? Are companies under the age of 21 forbidden to purchase alcohol?
Quackers
The Frog
Strong independent wimmin should be able to fund and seek out their own contraceptives and abortifacients.
Hardnosed capitalists should be able to get by without ancient superstitions.
Well, that's easy for you and me to say, seeing that - presumably - we both don't eat pork in the first place.
I'd sure take objection with my employer refusing to pay for other employees healthcare based on religiously motivated bigotry, though.
Cause that's what this is. This is virtually the last stop before not paying for medical treatment unprortionally or near-exclusively needed by people of a particular genetic or cultural background.
Erm...and that would be bad... how exactly?
The status as would be in absense of this ridiculous law looks fairly reasonable to me:
As an employer you don't get to bring your religion to work.
As an employee you don't get to bring your religion to work.
You're not up for that in any specific situation? Fine, choose a different business/job then. Society does not have to bend over to make it possible for you to be a Mormon bartender or a Jihadist hooker. It's you, who'll have to deal, not the rest of society.
But hey, bringing your religion to work sure can be fun.
How about a t-shirt with your favorite homophobe/racist/mysoginistic bible verse on it?
Heck, in a pinch that thing about stoning* adulterers would work great for the receptionist of a cheap motel.
Quran 2:223 is also a true classic. They don't make'em like that anymore.
I wanna work for NOW.
*Did that even involve stoning or was it just plain killing and only Islam is keeping it real again?
civvver
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 5,855
Well on the one hand I do support religious freedom and hate to see it trampled on. On the other hand, hobby lobby is providing a monetary benefit to its employees in the form of health care. I don't really see why hobby lobby should get to decide how its employees exercise that benefit.
Let me put it another way. Suppose hobby lobby didn't directly provide a health care plan for its employees but instead gave them health insurance vouchers they could use to purchase their own group plan on an exchange. Would hobby lobby then be allowed to place restrictions on what plans they can purchase?
Or abstract it even further, what if hobby lobby gave them straight up cash and said we're not providing health care anymore, here's the money we used to spend on it, do what you want. Responsible employees then buy their own health care. Does hobby lobby get a say in what their plans cover?
When you put it in those terms it sounds ludicrous. So I completely understand the objections even though I sympathize with the individuals at hobby lobby. Unfortunately you can't tell people how they can and can't spend their compensation and in this case the health care is compensation. To me it's just as bad as if a company fired you because you bought a beer with your paycheck and they disagree with drinking, or maybe you bought a controversial book. As long as you don't bring it to work then it's none of their business.
Single payer, ie the government, is not the way to go. We'll end up with not enough funds, skyrocketing costs (though they're doing that already), reduced quality of care and rationed services. However I do think it is high time we stop expecting employers to provide health care benefits.
If you look at the history of how this began it started around WWII when the government passed caps on how much companies could pay their employees. This is pretty stupid imo, free market and all. But anyway, companies skirted around the issue as they always do by providing health care plans to entice executives to work for them since they couldn't offer them any more money than the competition. Then the strong auto unions came along and bam, health care is a standard benefit at most jobs. I think instead it would be far better if these companies paid every employee that cash that they spend on health care and the employees themselves buy their own plans, open up buying plans across state lines, open up competition, allow employees to form their own groups to get cheaper group coverage like people who join triple-A or whatever. Now you're a single young man and want a cheap plan? Great, you get to pocket the extra your company pays you. Have a family of 8 kids? You might have to spend more to get acceptable out of pocket limits since you go to the dr a lot but your risk is still spread among all the other people buying from the same company.
Let me put it another way. Suppose hobby lobby didn't directly provide a health care plan for its employees but instead gave them health insurance vouchers they could use to purchase their own group plan on an exchange. Would hobby lobby then be allowed to place restrictions on what plans they can purchase?
Or abstract it even further, what if hobby lobby gave them straight up cash and said we're not providing health care anymore, here's the money we used to spend on it, do what you want. Responsible employees then buy their own health care. Does hobby lobby get a say in what their plans cover?
When you put it in those terms it sounds ludicrous. So I completely understand the objections even though I sympathize with the individuals at hobby lobby. Unfortunately you can't tell people how they can and can't spend their compensation and in this case the health care is compensation. To me it's just as bad as if a company fired you because you bought a beer with your paycheck and they disagree with drinking, or maybe you bought a controversial book. As long as you don't bring it to work then it's none of their business.
Single payer, ie the government, is not the way to go. We'll end up with not enough funds, skyrocketing costs (though they're doing that already), reduced quality of care and rationed services. However I do think it is high time we stop expecting employers to provide health care benefits.
If you look at the history of how this began it started around WWII when the government passed caps on how much companies could pay their employees. This is pretty stupid imo, free market and all. But anyway, companies skirted around the issue as they always do by providing health care plans to entice executives to work for them since they couldn't offer them any more money than the competition. Then the strong auto unions came along and bam, health care is a standard benefit at most jobs. I think instead it would be far better if these companies paid every employee that cash that they spend on health care and the employees themselves buy their own plans, open up buying plans across state lines, open up competition, allow employees to form their own groups to get cheaper group coverage like people who join triple-A or whatever. Now you're a single young man and want a cheap plan? Great, you get to pocket the extra your company pays you. Have a family of 8 kids? You might have to spend more to get acceptable out of pocket limits since you go to the dr a lot but your risk is still spread among all the other people buying from the same company.
They don't get paid enough.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
The analogy is silly to begin with, but let's put it in proper context. It's more like if they were required to provide bacon as an option to order in their cafeteria, but no one was required to actually eat it if they didn't want to. But, still, it's an awful analogy.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
I love the hysteria of the left when they don't even know what they hysterical about. It is quite funny to look at from afar. The fact of the matter is that birth control is still required by law, just that those that cause abortion are prevented from being covered. Obviously people here are more concerned about the right to kill than the right to life.
People on the right in the US have always prized the right to kill over the right to life.
RobAnybody
Emperor
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
- Messages
- 1,952
It is quite funny when people have no idea what they're talking about. The 4 drugs in question don't cause abortions! Oh, those silly people who believe they do. We both shall laugh at them! Ha, I say! Ha ha indeed! What silly people! We shall look at them from afar & laugh. You & me, CH, we know what's what!
Goodfella
Showing results for
It actually was. For the first 140 years, the Bill of Rights was interpreted only as protections from actions by the federal government. This isn't to say that you were free to murder people, separate state and federal laws prevented that, but it wasn't until the 14th amendment began to be enforced in the 1920s (incorporation) that people even recognized that states can violate your constitutional rights. Who knows how long it will take before it's recognized that other people can too.
Quackers
The Frog
If you can't afford it, then don't have sex. I would be amazed if a women, even on minimum wage, couldn't afford it. According to planned parenthood, the most common contraceptive - the pill, costs anywhere between $15-$50/month.
Strong independent wimmin who need no man should get their crap together and stop expecting Big Momma corporation/government to look after their own bodies.
KMRblue1027
Deity
1: Can you be even less empathic, I think you've hit the absolute bottom without directly punching woman in the face.
2: Most forms of contraception are actually used by woman who aren't even in active relationships because they are a medical necessity to regulate hormones, you're arguing that they should have to shell out $600+ annually for that on a $12,000 a year salary?
3: While you're at it just have corporations that have employes with bi-polar be forced to cover the cost of their meds by themselves? It's not like it's a medical necessity, oh wait....
Wrymouth3
Emperor
In the Supreme Court's definitive list of things that are people, god-fearing, subservient women are at the bottom of the list right below Cool Ranch Doritos, Non-Terrestrial Homunculii, and semen.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
• Plan B "morning-after pill"
• Ella "morning-after pill"
• Hormonal and copper intrauterine devices (IUDs)
That's the 4, right?
Thanks for that. Great. Fantastic. <claps>
I don't think this is accurate. It assumes that it's possible to impartially review laws in a scientific manner, and that a 5-4 result is simply a matter of regular left-right politics rather than legal philosophies. If judges are unpredictable, it probably means they're approaching their job without any sort of philosophy or theoretical background upon which they'll interpret the law.
Not to sit here defending Hobby Lobby, because I'm not. But most birth control is still covered by Hobby Lobby, certainly everything from your point number 2 is. Also I see these figures of hundreds or thousands of dollars thrown around regularly but it doesn't make sense to me. My girlfriend gets hers for free from the county health department, and it's not like we live in some Liberal utopia area.
Again I haven't read the word for word decision as given by the court, but as I understand it it is incredibly narrow and likely won't significantly effect women negatively. Also it seems to have very little potentially for creating a 'slippery slope' hence I don't quite understand why so many people are crying wolf.
tl;dr: The decision is unfortunate, but not as unreasonable as people are saying. There is so much hyperbole and outright lies on my Facebook feed right now it's giving me a headache.
And I'll say one more time, we deserve this for putting healthcare in the hands of employers. Sing;e payer was, and is the only way to go.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
And it's not like any individual state could go ahead and pass a law requiring employers to pay for those specific 4 forms of birth control anyways. Oh wait, they could, since this wasn't a 1st Amendment case.
Your headache is resulting from the fact that while the creep of human right protections into corporate legal constructs is a major issue in this society, it doesn't roll out the attention like "ermergerdzers the religisio-pro-life-tards are teh Americern Taliban and hate women!" "Every woman will now be forced to quit work and stand pregnant in kitchens while sweat shopping sammiches because THIS CASE HERE!"
Similar threads
