"but he said only the kind of family-owned companies he represents would
make such claims, not large, multinational corporations."Except
one of his clients is Hobby Lobby with 600 stores and 15,000 employees.
That's pretty large. Is Walmart family owned? What kind of definition would
be used for that?
Here's what I've noticed about the religious zealots like the owners
of Hobby Lobby who insist that their particular brand of christianity is the
correct one and they therefore deserve special treatment. Despite their
confidence and certainty, they will shriek and moan at the slightest glimpse of
an offense. How should those of us who disbelieve in God or religion understand
this? Does their god not bestow comfort in the face of opposition?
So long as companies like Hobby Lobby buy and sell products from Communist China
-- their arguement of "religion" and "not promoting abortions"
is moot and hypocritical.Grow and show some integrity.Put your
money where your mouth is why don't you?
slcdenizen -This has nothing to do with Hobby Lobby being a
"religious zealot", as you say. It also has nothing to do with their
belief that "their particular brand of Christianity is the correct
one...". As the article mentions most clearly, the litigants feel any form
of birth control used after conception violates their religious beliefs.
Personally, I don't agree with their position, but I respect their right to
believe as they wish - just as I respect your right to "disbelieve". The
question before the court is whether a corporation, C-Corp, or LLC - all
entities that are taxable, stand on their own, and limit the liability of their
owners - have the right to mirror the owner's religious beliefs. It's
not so straight-forward.In the end, I hope they can find some way of
working around this issue and allow the owners to avoid violating their
religious beliefs while also allowing the women that work there the opportunity
to acquire birth control, if they desire. Perhaps Hobby Lobby keeps its current
Health Code plan, but employees have the right to personally and directly
supplement the plan another way - perhaps through the Affordable Care Act.
Example of a typical complainer:Complains that lack of birth control
is war against women,Ignores hollywood, pornography, and the fashion
industry etc. Perhaps you could CHOOSE not to get pregnant if you
WEREN'T just an OBJECT to be used by another. Go ahead and hate but please
hate with priority!
@Abeille"I hope they can find some way of working around this
issue and allow the owners to avoid violating their religious beliefs"Thus the silliness of the whole situation. The God of the Bible, whom
they claim to worship, never mentions contraception. Hence one must conclude
that the "religious beliefs" are an interpretation or third-step
conclusion from some verse or traditional understanding. Fine, then I invoke the
right to slay my neighbor for working on the Sabbath, which I can find
explicitly condoned in the Bible. Or, perhaps if I can't follow that
expressly permitted command, I can physically silence women in my church as
mentioned by Paul, which in this case I'll also consider my place of work
because my religion isn't confined to my own home. My God is
everybody's God and I won't hear otherwise. Have I devolved into
insanity yet? In just a short paragraph? No, sir, I do not want to slip back
down the slippery slope of allowing one's religious beliefs to impinge on
others. Our society was the birth child of the enlightenment and we should
continue on that trajectory.
@CBAXLots of women use birth control for a variety of reasons, many of
them don't involve casual sex outside of marriage. Many want to limit the
number of children they have in their marriage. Some have health issues and
certain contraceptives help with it. Some just don't want to deal with a
pregnancy if heaven forbid they should be raped. Besides... where's the
complaints about how all these insurance companies cover "male
enhancement" pills? Now THAT's something that has little purpose other
than helping people have more sex (though even then that can help some who want
to have children but are having difficulty with it).
@CBAX Speaking of which... that girlfriend I had who used contraception in
part in case someone raped her, that wasn't paranoia, her sister was a
victim of that very thing. In Michigan, health insurance policies aren't
allowed to cover abortion so if someone wanted coverage for abortion for any
reason including rape they'd need to buy what is effectively "rape
insurance". It's disgusting, but hey, that's the kind of thing you
all support making women have to do.
Health Care is the service that so many are concerned about and need. Birth
control is a private matter that should not be covered by Health Insurance. This
should be an individual commitment and if someone wants to practice birth
control let them pay for that. If a company does not want to participate in
birth control as part of their insurance they should not have to. How many years
have we participated in company health insurance that did not offer birth
control? I've never had it in my insurance. If someone doesn't want
to work for a company because of they don't include birth control in their
insurance, look somewhere else for a job. What kind of a nation are we becoming
that think that other people should pay for our every need?
Let's make sure that we understand the central fact of the case. There are
four approved drugs or devices approved in the US for prevention of pregnancy
that prevent the implantation of a blastocyst (fertilized egg) in the uterus.
These are the birth control methods that the Green family currently does not
cover in their health plan for their employees and object to on moral grounds.
They currently provide in their plan the 16 other approved birth control drugs
that prevent either ovulation or fertilization. There's no war on women
here, no denying legitimate health care needs. They just don't want to be
involved in terminating a pregnancy that has already started.
Schnee - Walmart is a publicly traded corporation,you can buy Walmart stock.
Hobby Lobby is a closed corporation and the public cannot buy stock. Teh green
family are the sole owners of the business and all of it's assets. People
incorporate family businesses in order to get better tax rates and to prevent
their homes and personal property from becoming part of the assets of the
business. Should that deprive them of the right to not spend their
assets on something that they are morally opposed to?
First, The first amendment limits what congress can do in regards
to first amendment rights.It doed not define who can exercise those
right, nor limit the people or how they organize themselves in exercising those
rights.Second. Businesses provide healthcare as a
benefit, paid for in part or entirely by the business,as such, they
are entirely in their rights in deciding what benefits they will pay for.The employee is free to pay for additional coverage on their own,Finally,Religion is not only something that is practiced in
private, but can be and is part of every aspect of the lives or religion people
and religions.The government has no constitutional power, to limit
religion in the public square nor to limit it's exercise in the public
square.The government can not confine it to home and church. Nor
should it ever.So what is the issue?People demanding
things from their employers they have no right demanding.And in this
case it is the federal government demanding something that is violation of the
Birth control & abortion should not be part of health insurance plans.
Businesses should not be required to offer them as part of an insurance policy.
And for my liberal friends who will raise this issue, yes, Viagra should also
not be part of any insurance plans. How many decades have liberals
stated that the government should stay out of the bedroom. They should allow
personal, private decisions to be made when it comes to sex. Well...keep the
government from forcing employers to include birth control, Viagra, and abortion
in their insurance plans. And the government shouldn't require me to pay
for your personal decisions.If someone wants a plastic surgery
procedure, will I be taxed on that? Will that be the next thing required in
Obamacare?What about vision correction, teeth whitening, hair plugs?
Those are all elective procedures. Americans that want birth
control, pay for it yourself. Take some personal responsibility.
I believe you cannot separate the values of the CEO from the values of the
business. If the CEO lives his life according to Judeo-Christian values, and
wants his business to reflect those deep, heart-felt values, s/he should be at
liberty, and free, to create such a business culture. This is America! We are
free to worship, yes, even through our business we can extend our worship to how
we serve others in the business.If a CEO objects personally to
abortion and birth control, s/he should be free to create a business culture
that reflects those beliefs so that s/he does not wound his/her conscience of
belief. If an employee wants those as part of an employee compensation package,
they are free to seek employment where the insurance covers those things.
Nobody is forced to offer or accept something they do not want. The government
should not be forcing this upon any of us.
The morally superior Green family is concerned more with the bottom line then
abortion. This is born out of the fact, that they have no problem buying
most of their products from Chinawhich not only pays for abortions but
still Encourages abortion after one child.The bottom line is Hobby
Lobby is a business that want's to tell other businesses what they can and
cannot do.The private insurance company is being told by Hobby Lobby
what it can and can't offer in the way of healthcare.Hobby
Lobby want's to tell you and your doctor what it believes is best.So once again as others have pointed out, these religious folks think they
should be able to force their beliefs onto employees who don't share their
brand of religion. Giving businesses "Personhood" would be a
very bad idea, the republicans should start the legislation next year.If the business and the owners are one, why are they legally separated from
What are they thinking. If people can't afford birth control Are they old
enough to have sex.
The Court said in Windsor that having to pay taxes that others don't have
to pay is discriminatory, but when religious people have to pay taxes that
others don't have to pay that is acceptable? The females of the Court are
operating under a double standard for those that they agree with.
One thing nobody seems to be talking about:The Green family could be
operating their business as individual proprietors/partners, but they choose not
to. Instead, they've chosen to operate as a corporation--a
government-created legal entity that shields them from individual liability for
their business's actions and grants them favorable tax treatment.Their arguments about religious freedom would be far more persuasive if they
did business in their capacity as natural persons. Instead, they're hiding
behind the special treatment that government provides corporations, while
decrying how government impinges on their religous freedom.
this won't stop with corporations make no mistake. The next domino to fall
will be churches being FORCED to support late term abortion via the morning
after pill. Liberty is DEAD in this country. Get used to it.
"High court seems divided over birth control rule"Of course.
The ladies on the court seem to be letting their personal feelings interfere
with the application of the provisions of the US Constitution's 1st
Amendment.---------------"Here's what I've
noticed about the religious zealots like the owners of Hobby Lobby who insist
that their particular brand of Christianity is the correct one..."Oops. It's not about whose religion is correct. It's about not
allowing the government to interfere with the rights of citizens to practice
religion uninhibited."The God of the Bible, whom they claim to
worship, never mentions contraception."Doesn't matter. You
could worship a stone pillar of Baal nether of which mention contraception. The
right to worship is not to be infringed."Fine, then I invoke the
right to slay my neighbor for working on the Sabbath..."Slaying
your neighbor, on any day, is not a good idea. Could put you behind bars... or
worse."Many want to limit the number of children they have in
their marriage."It's not rocket science. Go to the drug
store and buy, for a few dollars, the pill or paraphernalia to prevent
LDS Liberal, you are absolutely right. There seems to be a fair amount of
disingenuousness among those claiming "religious" objections to fund
birth control, when they have no problem supporting the expansive birth control
culture in China by manufacturing goods in that country--thereby helping to prop
up the communist regime and the objectionable family values promoted there. I
noticed the same thing here in Utah. In my youth, I worked for a locally owned
convenient store chain in Utah County. The owner refused to sell birth control
because it was against his wife's LDS values. That is fair enough, they
can sell what they want, but their "values" seemed contradictory. You
see, they sold beer, wine coolers, cigarettes, and chewing tobacco like it was
going out of style. I asked the manager about this contradiction. She just
laughed and said that those items make too much money as compared to birth
control. So there you have it folks! Money is the real culprit here and that
is Hobby Lobby's problem as well. They support abortions in China because
of the amount of money they make there.
The penalty has been ruled a tax. So is it okay to tax people for their
religious beliefs and practices, which are guaranteed by the first amendment? If
there were an additional income tax based on which religion one is a member of,
that would be considered outrageous, and contrary to the first amendment. Some might argue that HL could just pay the penalty, which is cheaper
than the premiums. But what if HL wants to provide health insurance as a benefit
to its employees, either out of benevolence or a desire to compete for better
employees, but they choose a plan that does not cover abortifacients, then they
would have to pay twice. They would pay the premiums and the $2000 penalty.Taxes on practice of ones religion are prohibitive to the free exercise
of religion, and are therefore contrary to the first amendment.I
hope the attorneys for HL and the other companies were sufficiently articulate
in pointing this out.
The company can not pay for the morning after pill for an employee or the spouse
of an employee, they would paying for an abortion.
Wow, Kings Court - I guess the matter is clearly settled. Since a Quiki-mart
owner in Utah County was a hypocrite, therefore ALL business owners claiming
right of conscience have no honest beliefs and are only motivated by greed and
money.Thanks for the broad brush. Clearly, everyone needs the
government to determine who holds sincere beliefs that can be allowed
@K 10:23 p.m. March 25, 2014The company can not pay for the morning
after pill for an employee or the spouse of an employee, they would paying for
an abortion.----------------------------The morning
after pill does not terminate (abort) a pregnancy. No pregnancy has been
started when the morning after pill is taken. The only thing the morning after
pill does is keep a pregnancy from starting.
@patriot:"late term abortion via the morning after pill"There seems to be a contradiction here....
>>The question before the court is whether a corporation...have the
right to mirror the owner's religious beliefs. It's not so
straight-forward.Actually, that's not the question before the
court at all. The question before the court is whether the government's
desire to force corporate-provided insurance to cover abortifacients meets the
established legal test for whether a proposed regulation is justified in
restricting First Amendment rights.The established test says that
any proposed regulation that would restrict a constitutional freedom 1) must
address a very compelling government interest; and 2) must "employ the least
restrictive measures possible to achieve its goal." While the Obama
Administration's wish to expand access to contraception *might* meet the
first requirement, there's no way it meets the second. Abortifacients are
so dirt cheap and prevalent--you can buy them at any drug store for the cost of
a six-pack of soda--it's difficult to see how intruding on Freedom of
Religion is required to make them even more widely available.
I agree with Abeille. The issue in this case is if a for-profit corporation can
exercise religion. Based on what I've read so far, I think the Hobby Lobby
side has the stronger argument. Ironically, the government seems to have
undermined its own position by bending over backwards to respect religious
rights in connection with the ACA and in other areas in the past. (I know this
may be a shocker to the "Government hates religion" crowd, but this is
indeed the case.)The government also conceded the sincerity of the
belief in question. I question who the belief actually serves. The religious
right's anti-abortion crusade has always struck me as fundamentally
selfish. It allows one to feel morally righteous (and, for some, superior)
without bearing any responsibility for the lives affected by one's actions.
What a nice position to be in.I'm all for limiting the
necessity of abortion as much as possible, but a judgmental and moralistic
approach seems to be more about serving one's ego than actually addressing
the problem. If the Hobby Lobby owners sincerely want to limit abortions, they
should have no objection to the contraceptives in question.
@wrz"Doesn't matter. You could worship a stone pillar of
Baal nether of which mention contraception. The right to worship is not to be
infringed."I'm glad we're progressing past these
arguments. If you're assertion was to be followed and respected, then there
would be no societal argument against allowing the ku klux klan to likewise
impose their deeply held convictions on their communities. If you're a
member, then I withdraw from the argument. If you're not, then apply your
same reasoning above to denounce the ku klux klan, who are simply following
their religious beliefs. Or, on the other hand, we could continue to
require a semblance of common good and humanity in the beliefs of others and not
be hesitant to critisize each other's religious beliefs , the unchecked
application of which have led to horrible atrocities in the past. Your choice,
I've picked mine.
@wrz"Doesn't matter. You could worship a stone pillar of
Baal nether of which mention contraception. The right to worship is not to be
infringed.=================Then Warren Jeffs was
illegally imprisoned wasn't he? I mean after all he was only doing what he
felt God was commanding him to do. And his right to worship is not to be
infringed. Or are you saying that there can be reasonable
restrictions in place?
The history is that it used to be, and still is to a some degree that companies
would provide health benefits to its employees as an incentive, to attract and
retain the best employees. In other words, an incentive, and also a gift to
employees to promote and preserve health. It wasn’t a
“right”. Now it’s turning into a litmus test, a cause, an
inalienable right.Now why is it the government’s job to
dictate to said corporation exactly what will be and what won’t be part of
that insurance. Why are some rights so staunchly supported (i.e.
“PERSONAL” freedoms) to the point that SOCIETAL, or RELIGIOUS
freedoms seem banished. Isn’t it the legislature’s job to reconcile
all these kinds of freedoms, using integrity and intelligence, BALANCING one
group’s freedom with another’s. No one right should be championed
at the expense of all others. Can we really afford to uphold one constitutional
amendment at the expense of another. Really?
If you don’t like dedicated Christians who happen to run businesses, why
work for them. You’re bound to have serious disagreements with them at
some point. I’m not saying you should be PROHIBITED from working for
them, but why would you want to. Why join their company and then constantly
endeavor to foist your philosophy on them. If you think about it,
aren't companies just a conglomeration of individuals, be they employees,
stock-holders, or executives, bound together by legal covenant to advance the
corporation. Why are you forcing them to accept someone's liberal agenda.
I’ll tell you one big reason health insurance is such a hot
potato. Because it is so expensive. Someone is making so much money while the
rest of us are hurting. But conservatives at least understand that even though
it may be unfair, rich people and corporations still have rights. Another reason people complain about such issues is “for the principle
of the thing.” One thing I notice is that people who do that are usually
riding their own "hobby horse."
Who is holding whom hostage? You say that the owners have no prerogative to
specify what is in their company's health benefits. A person without
balance will complain till all moral judgments are voided and they get
everything they want. A reasonable person will be grateful for what health
benefits they have (health benefits are not a right, never were), and pay out of
his/her own pocket for those inexpensive items his company does not. And if the company's health plan excludes too many things, for whatever
reason, that health insurance becomes less attractive to prospective employees
and ceases to be an effective incentive to said employees. In other words,
health insurance has traditionally been a perk, an extra, but not a right.Let's turn it around. Why should the liberal people get to dictate
to the conservative exactly what he or she will offer as an employment incentive
to his/her employees. It is an interference into the conservative's
religious freedom of conscience to do so when he is being forced to violate his
most deeply held beliefs just to stay in business. Where is the balance of
rights? Why so one-sided?
1-Go buy some birth control. 2- Or get a job not in a store selling
christian fish from china3- stop trying to get the government to
make laws to give you stuff3- realize that the government has a
poor track record of taking care of you4- realize that it's all
about money 5- realize there are 100 worse things in society than
hobby lobby not wanting to provide birth control (their wages are probably one
of those things)6- What I am saying is be pragmatic for your own
Ok liberals, here is the question that you need to ask yourself.Why
do you want to keep raising the price of health insurance? You do realize that
be eliminating this particular mandate, and other mandates, that we could
actually DECREASE the cost of insurance.It is really that important
to hurt 99 so you can help 1?
"Clement objected that businesses would find themselves at a competitive
disadvantage in a situation where other employers were offering
insurance."So then shouldn't these companies offer similar
health plans to stay competitive? Many employers tout their benefits packages to
@ wrz"Of course. The ladies on the court seem to be letting their
personal feelings interfere with the application of the provisions of the US
Constitution's 1st Amendment."Of course it seems all
justices on the court are letting their personal feelings interfere with the
application of the provisions of the 1st Amendment. These would not only include
the women's personal feelings about the subject, but also the men's
personal feelings about the subject (including religious and political views).
If businesses are allowed to hold religious beliefs and make decisions that
affect their staff because of it, then health care should not be allowed to be
connected to ones' employer in any way. And texas should be allowed to
@HutteriteCan a corporation be held responsible for capital crimes?
A corporation is only a person for benefits, the moment they do something wrong
the blame falls to a person within. Also, I think they like their
I worked with a couple that had a new home, two new cars and take several
vacations a year to all places of the globe. They have the nerve to stand up and
say that they can't afford Health insurance because the company offered
Health plan is to expensive. I agree women should have the choice to do with
their body what they want but along that line they also need to assume the
responsibility for their choice which includes paying for that choice. Not to
single out women I also believe Viagra should be my responsibility and not my
insurance companies. We are in the financial ruin as a nation because we believe
we are entitled and don't have to save or budget for anything. It is the
role of government to build roads and infrastructure and to stay the heck out of
my pocket. I work hard enough to support mine. Don't expect me and others
to pay for your entitlements. Earn what you want.
Red Shirt, Do you honestly believe the cost of a health insurance policy is
going to be lower because it doesn't cover birth control? That's
nonsense. It will make no applicable difference in the bottom line.
We are here to be tried and tested. If we take everyone's rights away, how
are we to choose. I don't agree with pills that end a pregnancy, but who am
I to tell another what to do with their body? Especially if it doesn't hurt
mine. They will answer later.
Hey "the truth" - "The government has no constitutional power, to
limit religion in the public square nor to limit it's exercise in the
public square?"WRONG.Government has every right to
"limit religion in the public square."If your religion calls
for raping virgins and sacrificing babies, it can be limited.If your
religion calls for depriving other Americans of their rights, it can and should
be limited.What makes you think America is a theocracy?
It's amazing the hang ups that people have over anything related to sex.
Why is this medication any different from your blood pressure pills? Oh,
because someone using it might have sex. It's truly bizarre how much some
people care about other people's sex lives. I've got a great idea.
You think sex for any reason other than procreation is evil, then you don't
have sex for any reason other than procreation. Otherwise, mind your own
To "GZE" it is a start. It may only lower it a dollar or two, but if
you cut out enough mandates you can really start to save money.See
"Mandated health benefits in Colorado increase the cost of health insurance
up to 50%" at BusinessWord. Another great article is "The True Effects
of Comprehensive Coverage:Examining State Health Insurance Mandates"
by the Baton Rouge Area Chamber. They have a graph that shows the number of
mandates increasing, which ironically mimics the increase in costs.So, back to the topic. If you want to cut costs, cut the mandates.
@ wrz"Of course. The ladies on the court seem to be letting their
personal feelings interfere with the application of the provisions of the US
Constitution's 1st Amendment."One could just as easily
argue that several of the conservatives on the court are ruling based on their
religious views, rather than on sound legal reasoning. (Would they be as
sympathetic to arguments based on the religious freedoms of Muslims? the FLDS?
The Scientologists?)Or, one could stop a minute, and realize that
two of the potential votes in favor of the Obamacare mandate are from men
(Breyer and Kennedy), and one is from a Catholic (Sotomayor). Perhaps legal
conclusions aren't just a function of gender or religion....But
to say that the female justices are just voting based on their feelings is the
most sexist thing I've read this week--perhaps this month, or this year.
Abortion is an elective procedure, save in case of rape etal. Why should
taxpayers pay for a tummy tuck when a person has made poor choices of activity.
Individuals want control over their bodies, but they refuse the consequences of
their actions and want a KING's X upon repenting. Save some accidental
disfigurement elective surgery ought to be on your own dime.