Hobby Lobby Ruling and Corporate "Persons"

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Annee

This is fully oppressive of women. It is none if their business how a woman chooses to control her reproduction.

Yes it is. You're asking them to pay for it. Stop asking them to pay for it and it stops being their business.

No, they provide insurance. How women use that insurance is NOT their business.

There business is Hobby stuff. They are not a church.

This is exactly the same as if they forced women to wear a veil because of religious belief.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: EvillerBob

Do you know what inequity is? Do you understand what rights the 14th Amendment protects? What does "equal protection under the law" mean to you?

Absolutely. Remove the insurance mandate, then everyone will be equally protected. You're starting from the basis that the entire idea isn't fundamentally flawed. That basis is, well, flawed.

Sounds to me like you don't know how insurance works. We all pay for all kinds of things. For example, when I pay my monthly insurance premium, I may be paying for your erectile dysfunction medication. Why should I have pay for you to have sex? Why should I have to pay for a smokers emphysema treatment?

Exactly. Why should you have to pay for it? Especially if you're a non-smoker and object to supporting those who have, through their own bad (and entirely avoidable) decision making, made themselves ill. You shouldn't.

Every woman in the US who has a personal health insurance policy is guaranteed full access to ALL FDA contraceptive methods, at no extra cost, under the ACA, which is the law of the land. The contraception mandate is still in tact and still in effect.

I'm not saying it's not legal, I'm saying it shouldn't be the law in the first place. I'm not saying that women should be denied access, I'm saying that companies should not be forced to pay for their contraception, in the same way that the company should not be forced to pay for my erectile dysfunction medication or my lung cancer treatment.

Sorry, but governmental interest of public health and welfare trump your tender sensibilities in regards to women's procreative health issues. Fact is, this ruling has placed the burden of fulfilling this odious contraception mandate squarely on the shoulders of each and every tax payer, including you, including ALL Christians, and including Hobby Lobby and the Green family's personal taxes too.

I have no issue with contraception, either pre- or post-conception. I have every issue with people being told they no longer have to care about the burden because it's now somebody else's problem. Always someone else to take the blame, God forbid we ever expect people to take personal responsibility. Everyone gets a medal, everyone gets to be a winner. Huzzah!

It makes a complete mockery of the people who have fought hard to do well in the world, who have paid their way and have made hard decisions to do without before they were ready to afford it. You know, the people who have taken responsibility for their lives.

a reply to: EvillerBob


I agree. with you. The best way to resolve the problem of other people paying for YOURS and MY health needs is, we should have universal health care like Canada, England, the Netherlands and all other truly civilized countries. Women should not have to ask their boss about birth control during a job interview, and bosses have no place coming between ANYONE and their doctor.

originally posted by: EvillerBob

I'm not saying that women should be denied access, I'm saying that companies should not be forced to pay for their contraception, in the same way that the company should not be forced to pay for my erectile dysfunction medication or my lung cancer treatment.

That's a completely different debate.

That's like the equal marriage debate, where some say to eliminate government marriages.

It's about equality.

originally posted by: Annee
What exactly did she agree with?

Honest, I'm just curious. No nefarious reasons for asking.

And is she religious?

That's a good point actually, the topic has ranged over a few different things so it's worth clarifying.

I'd describe her as a low-to-moderately religious Roman Catholic. She's also a midwife, which may only be tangentially relevant, but her role does involve dealing with contraception (which I always found a bit odd for a profession more focussed on delivering babies than stopping them) and also with women undergoing termination of pregnancies.

I asked her whether she felt a company should be forced to provide health insurance, to which she replied she wasn't entirely against the idea for a core set of catastrophic things but didn't think they should be forced to provide a complete range of coverage - if the employee wanted the full range, they could buy it themselves.

I also asked her if she thought companies should pay for contraception. She replied that she didn't think this should be a requirement, for the following reason: medical treatment from her point of view falls into two categories. The first is the catastrophic stuff - taken to hospital after an accident, surgery after a heart-attack, the sort of thing where you have no real immediate choice - have it or die. The second is the day-to-day stuff - medical checkups, embarrassing boils, runny noses, hayfever tablets etc. She said she thinks that the second category covers the majority of medical involvement for most people and is relatively low cost, which should be left to people to pay themselves. She included contraception in the second category.

It's only a summary but I think it's fairly accurate. I was a little surprised myself to be honest, I thought she'd be more supportive of it.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: EvillerBob
I agree. with you. The best way to resolve the problem of other people paying for YOURS and MY health needs is, we should have universal health care like Canada, England, the Netherlands and all other truly civilized countries. Women should not have to ask their boss about birth control during a job interview, and bosses have no place coming between ANYONE and their doctor.

Or... let people pay for it themselves. The boss still has no need to be involved in the relationship between the patient and the doctor.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Thank you.

But, IMO whether to provide or not ---- is not the debate.

The debate is their reason.

They are forcing their religious belief on women.

a reply to: EvillerBob

lol..
you disagree that the whole obama care law is unconstitutional....
I do also!!
I also think that the employers should get out of the business of providing insurance as a benefit.
I think we should separate such a necessity in today's world away for employment that is no longer as steady as it used to be.

But you justify that idea that a business entity and their right to protect their religious beliefs while ignoring the fact that the same laws seems fail to protect the individuals same exact right!!!

We all have "lords" that we have to obey or face the consequences if we fail to!!
For employers it is the gov't.
for the employees it is the gov't along with the employers.
and for some women it is the gov't, employers, and husbands!!

hobby lobby and these other companies have been exempted- they don't have to pay the tax accociated with the not obeying the law.

so as far as any employee out there who has the identical same belief .... where is the law or court decision that permits them from not having to buy an insurance policy that will give their teen age daughter coverage that include birth control???

and well if these religious companies decide that they want to demand a letter from their female employers from their male guardians giving them permission to work.. do you believe that these companies should have the right to do this also??

And what if one of these companies wants their employee to fudge the books, lie to their wife when she calls, accept low quailty products even though they are dangerous, or something else that the person doesn't beief is that moral..
where do you stand there??

originally posted by: Annee

That's a completely different debate.

That's like the equal marriage debate, where some say to eliminate government marriages.

It's about equality.

I think the two need to be considered together, because the majority of people supporting the Hobby Lobby ruling are more likely supporting it on those grounds than the actual religious choice element. That's why I support it - because I believe in the importance of the company having free choice, not because I necessarily believe in the choice the company wants to make.

Considering them in isolation will only lead to confusion between the two sides of the debate.

a reply to: EvillerBob

then we can also let people pay for their own... whatever their healthcare need is!!

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Annee

That's a completely different debate.

That's like the equal marriage debate, where some say to eliminate government marriages.

It's about equality.

I believe in the importance of the company having free choice, not because I necessarily believe in the choice the company wants to make.

Free choice?

They are a business. They have free choice to buy American. They have free choice not to buy from China, that promotes and sometimes forces abortion. They have free choice to close on Sunday.

They are not a church. Their free choice should not in a secular country reach to forcing their religious belief on their employees. Especially their reproduction choices.

It is the same as forcing women employees to wear head scarfs, that they have to pay for themselves. No court would uphold that.

originally posted by: dawnstar
...
But you justify that idea that a business entity and their right to protect their religious beliefs while ignoring the fact that the same laws seems fail to protect the individuals same exact right!!!
...

It's not that I'm exactly ignoring it, I just thing it's already implied. Individuals should not be forced to purchase, companies should not be forced to provide.

and well if these religious companies decide that they want to demand a letter from their female employers from their male guardians giving them permission to work.. do you believe that these companies should have the right to do this also??

And what if one of these companies wants their employee to fudge the books, lie to their wife when she calls, accept low quailty products even though they are dangerous, or something else that the person doesn't beief is that moral..
where do you stand there??

Ah, yes, I was wondering when it would revert to this. There are two approaches that I could take.

The first is that there is a common understanding of where behaviour becomes unacceptable. Requiring people to pay for their own healthcare does not seek to force or prohibit certain behaviour or exercise any control over them. Requiring them to act in certain ways while at work (or in order to work) that has no impact on their actual job role is, arguably, unacceptable. Requiring people to be dishonest, or to knowingly put out a dangerous product, is also arguably unacceptable.

The second is the free market argument. Companies that put out a dangerous product will be sued into compliance or lose enough customers to put them out of business. Companies that place onerous and unacceptable conditions on their employees risk losing those employees. High turn-over rates are often a warning flag in companies, and many of them go on to spend a fortune on identifying why and correcting it. Or, they suffer as a company through the continual loss of knowledge and experience. The free market, when left to its own devices, really is pretty much self-correcting. Harsh, certainly, but self-correcting.

I stand somewhere in the middle. I believe that there is a base line of unacceptable behaviour, but outside of that it should be for the market (both consumer and employment) to determine whether it is willing to support that behaviour. If it is, then clearly the consensus is that the behaviour is not as unacceptable as some might think.

originally posted by: Annee

Free choice?

They are a business. They have free choice to buy American. They have free choice not to buy from China, that promotes and sometimes forces abortion. They have free choice to close on Sunday.

They are not a church. Their free choice should not in a secular country reach to forcing their religious belief on their employees. Especially their reproduction choices.

It is the same as forcing women employees to wear head scarfs, that they have to pay for themselves. No court would uphold that.

Which would all be entirely valid if only it were correct.

I can guarantee you that tomorrow morning, any woman in America will be able to go and purchase contraception without an employee of Hobby Lobby tackling them in the street and beating them into submission with a bible. Why? Because they are not stopping employees from using contraception.

Your argument is only valid if the medication involved could only be purchased with a signed letter of authority from Hobby Lobby.

The fact that certain medication might be too expensive to be readily available (which it isn't in this case), or that people might find it too financially difficult to obtain a separate health insurance package that does support the full range of contraception, is not an issue with Hobby Lobby, it's an issue with the insurance system as a whole. I would rather see them fix that system, you appear to prefer to see companies shoehorned into complying with the broken system and calling it good. This puzzles me, because your posts otherwise sound quite sane and well-reasoned.

originally posted by: Annee
They are not a church. Their free choice should not in a secular country reach to forcing their religious belief on their employees. Especially their reproduction choices.

Also, the company as a legal person exists for a very specific purpose. In all other respects, a company is nothing more than a collection of individuals on the board of directors. Individuals who should be free to direct their company (that they own, that they have built up, that they have taken risks to develop and put in the blood, sweat, and tears to make successful) as they see fit, religious beliefs and all. It's not like forcing someone to wear a headscarf, it's like a stranger wandering into your home, sitting on your sofa, putting his muddy boots up on the coffee table, and then complaining that you're not giving him any beer. This is your house, your sofa, your beer, who the hell does this guy think he is?

A public company (ie one that sells shares on the open market) is a slightly different animal, because they are beholden to a different set of rules and obligations.

a reply to: EvillerBob

or that the economy has become so screwed up that way too many people are just too afraid to cause any problems for their boss because there's thousands of applications in the desk drawers that the employer can go through and find a replacement. And with the number of "kids" some of whom look like they are ready to enter the adult world, well that situation isn't going to get any better.

Besides we are talking about unreasonable laws and rules here. Hobby Lobby has been relieved of the natural consequences of not obeying an obama care law to protect their religious rights.
But then you start bringing up how the natural consequences would cure the problem when the employers decide to have unreasonable rules that do the same thing to their employees.

Not fair or balanced

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Annee

Free choice?

They are a business. They have free choice to buy American. They have free choice not to buy from China, that promotes and sometimes forces abortion. They have free choice to close on Sunday.

They are not a church. Their free choice should not in a secular country reach to forcing their religious belief on their employees. Especially their reproduction choices.

It is the same as forcing women employees to wear head scarfs, that they have to pay for themselves. No court would uphold that.

Which would all be entirely valid if only it were correct.

I can guarantee you that tomorrow morning, any woman in America will be able to go and purchase contraception without an employee of Hobby Lobby tackling them in the street and beating them into submission with a bible. Why? Because they are not stopping employees from using contraception.

Your argument is only valid if the medication involved could only be purchased with a signed letter of authority from Hobby Lobby.

Not the point. I can go to a free clinic. But, that is not the point.

This company already offered insurance.

It's about forcing a religious belief.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Annee

Free choice?

They are a business. They have free choice to buy American. They have free choice not to buy from China, that promotes and sometimes forces abortion. They have free choice to close on Sunday.

They are not a church. Their free choice should not in a secular country reach to forcing their religious belief on their employees. Especially their reproduction choices.

It is the same as forcing women employees to wear head scarfs, that they have to pay for themselves. No court would uphold that.

Which would all be entirely valid if only it were correct.

I can guarantee you that tomorrow morning, any woman in America will be able to go and purchase contraception without an employee of Hobby Lobby tackling them in the street and beating them into submission with a bible. Why? Because they are not stopping employees from using contraception.

Your argument is only valid if the medication involved could only be purchased with a signed letter of authority from Hobby Lobby.

Not the point. I can go to a free clinic. But, that is not the point.

This company already offered insurance.

It's about forcing a religious belief.

The point is you are pissed off that a company does not want to assist you with murdering of your child.

originally posted by: Annee

Not the point. I can go to a free clinic. But, that is not the point.

This company already offered insurance.

It's about forcing a religious belief.

As opposed to forcing an unreligious belief?

Still force, except HL are enforcing theirs at the point of a metaphorical gun. HL's position allows both parties to get what they want. Your position only allows one party to get what they want. I still fail to see how that's better.

And the free access to the clinic is entirely part of the point. HL is not stopping anyone from using contraception. They're not doing blood tests and firing people who use it outside of work. The only issue at stake it who pays for it. If it's available free from a clinic, then there is no issue, surely? Except "who pays for the clinic", obviously.

originally posted by: thesaneone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: EvillerBob

originally posted by: Annee

Free choice?

They are a business. They have free choice to buy American. They have free choice not to buy from China, that promotes and sometimes forces abortion. They have free choice to close on Sunday.

They are not a church. Their free choice should not in a secular country reach to forcing their religious belief on their employees. Especially their reproduction choices.

It is the same as forcing women employees to wear head scarfs, that they have to pay for themselves. No court would uphold that.

Which would all be entirely valid if only it were correct.

I can guarantee you that tomorrow morning, any woman in America will be able to go and purchase contraception without an employee of Hobby Lobby tackling them in the street and beating them into submission with a bible. Why? Because they are not stopping employees from using contraception.

Your argument is only valid if the medication involved could only be purchased with a signed letter of authority from Hobby Lobby.

Not the point. I can go to a free clinic. But, that is not the point.

This company already offered insurance.

It's about forcing a religious belief.

The point is you are pissed off that a company does not want to assist you with murdering of your child.

I am not interested in your personal belief. That's your problem.

This is 100% about forcing religious belief.

It's not about anything else. Talk around it all you want. Doesn't matter. Comes right back to exactly what it is.

And that is forcing religious belief.

originally posted by: thesaneone

The point is you are pissed off that a company does not want to assist you with murdering of your child.

In fairness to Anne she has been a lot more articulate than that, I think your comment is unfairly harsh considering the points that she has raised. Yes, this discussion is within the context of contraception and abortion, but I don't think that's what she is driving at.