Why should Hobby Lobby's employees have to pay for Hobby Lobby's religious values?

Hmmmm...

The locks of war.

That has a ring to it!

 

Actually, Obamacare originally made churches pay for coverage of contraception. It caused a lot of opposition and they changed it.

 

So much FAIL.

Now show us that compromise the Churches got from insurance companies and was offered to Hobby Lobby.

 

That's stupid. I have no power here.

Even so, I'll fight ANY entity (company) that tries to push religion on its employees or the public.

 

Government should not be promoting 'religion'; not in any way, shape or form.

I really do hope that Hobby Lobby bites it eventually.

And in due time, the myriad lawsuits stemming from the USSC ruling on this, will lead to better protections for ALL; perhaps a Public Option on healthcare.

 

That makes no sense.

The court's ruling was faulty. No employer should be dictating healthcare coverage. And now because of this case, I think our lawmakers (in the coming years) will legislate accordingly.

Americans deserve a public option.

- - - Updated - - -

You are expressing your lack of understanding.

Even so, this really isn't over. So, we'll discuss it more later on, I'm certain.

 

Must have been faulty because it was based on law. You seem to forget that this was a non issue except for the dictate of Obamacare and regulations by unelected bureaucrats. Seems government is pushing their own progressive beliefs on others.

 

I didn't say that it wasn't based upon law, I simply implied that they screwed up. And before other respected lawyers said the same, I knew that.

Even so, as I suggested before... this isn't really over. Many cases are pending and Congress will eventually have to address the problems.

We should have had Single Payer DECADES ago. That Obama or ANY President would eventually step in and push for various changes/reforms should not surprise anyone. And certainly, to imagine that a solution applied this LATE in the game would generate problems.

One solution is a Public Option, which i believe is on the way as a result of this USSC ruling. (It's only a matter of a few years away.)

Business as is common in America. So, whatever.

I think a Public Option, will satisfy the problems many have seen in all of this.

So be it.

 

And cause a whole new slew of unintended consequences. Nothing like screwing it up totally.

 

You are right there is no reason an employer has to provide insurance. But if they do there is no reason they cannot pick and choose what kind to provide.

It is not a rule in any sense whatsoever

 

I know. That was the point. An entity refusing to pay for someone else's Plan B pills does not prevent them from attaining birth control (as you assert) any more than your refusal to buy me some water prevents me from drinking water. Now you get it...maybe.

 

Hobby Lobby hasn't, nor can they, prevent anyone from obtaining any form of birth control they want. There were 20 forms of BC on their policy; four were at question and removed. They are still providing 16 forms of BC. And whatever they don't get through their plan they can still get on their own. And the employees don't have to work there if they feel it is as oppressive as you claim. I am certain every employee gets hired with the understanding of who Hobby Lobby is.

And I will also say that BC is not a need; it is a choice. Having sex is a choice. This is the part your progressive love to glaze over as if humans are too stupid to control themselves that having sex is akin to a disease and that we can't control it. Well, you can; and your inability to do so should not be MY responsibility to pay for your lack of discipline.

 

Wait!!! Aren’t you trying to impose your belief on me by forcing me to pay for things you choose to do in your life? People support religious affiliations because it’s what they WANT to do. It’s not FORCED on anyone. You even expressed that you would never patronize Hobby Lobby or Chic Fil-A. You are proving they cannot force their beliefs on you. No one has to work for any of these companies, no one is forced to patronize them. However, through Obamacare, you are supporting imposing your belief that every business, regardless of their beliefs, should be FORCED to provide something that may go against their beliefs. So your beliefs override mine; even though mine are protected by the constitution? The SCOTUS made it clear in this case that YOU cannot force your beliefs on me when it violates my constitutional rights.

 

At the end if each work day, Hobby Lobby employees should be required to take communion and pray. They should praise The Lord for all of those clotchkies, vases, balls of yarn and soap dyes.

 

And I'll fight anyone that tries to use the power of government to limit someone's RIGHT to exercise their faith. The constitution does not limit one's exercising of their faith to a church. However, the constitution does limit what government can do in those regards. This seems to be a concept that escapes so many people.

 

It makes perfect sense, even under the terms you’ve defined. You claim birth control is a NEED. Well, we NEED water. Why isn’t water provided to us through Obamacare? There are a ton of things we NEED to sustain our health. Why aren’t they provided through Obamacare? If you’re going to argue this from the premise of NEED, then everything that falls under ‘NEED’ to sustain our health needs to be covered. And since you seem to think this makes no sense, then perhaps now you can see why so many of us find it insane that everyone should be paying for birth control.

If I am an employer, I should have every right to run my business in any way I want, without government intrusion. As long as I am not abusing anyone, it is no one’s business how I run MY company. If I am doing it wrong, let the consumers decide. I will go out of business if I’m doing it wrong. Chic Fil-A is one of the most successful fast food businesses out there. You disagree with their religious stance; but the customer base disagrees with you. Yet, you’d have government come in and dictate they shouldn’t be allowed to express their faith through their business.

You do understand what Liberty is, don’t you?

 

The issue isn't denying women access to birth control since that isn't happening. The issue is whether or not liberals will be allowed to force Catholics and others with religious objections to provide the four out of twenty forms of birth control that involve an abortion. Sixteen types of birth control--none of which involve self-control--isn't enough. No, the other four absolutely have to be bought and paid for by Catholics.

No one in their right mind thinks employees will be paying for the business owners religious views. They'll be paying for the four types of birth control if they choose to use those.

 

No. Many horrible aspects were alleviated via the legislation; that is undeniable.

And after 40+ years of self-serving corporate BS... things NEEDED to be shaken up period.

- - - Updated - - -

If they're covering male issues, they should be covering those for females. That, is the point.

 

Public Option, please. People don't have time for this religious BS some people or corporations are pushing.

 

No. Do you support wars I don't agree with? I wonder.

Even so, I pay my taxes. Do I believe in artificial insemination? Even so, I paid my medical insurance premiums and didn't try to cop out of the system by making some BOGUS religious claims.

- - - Updated - - -

PUBLIC option... please.

That is what I'll advocate for now and into the future.

Time to put a stop to people's religious BS, pronto!

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, "NEED" is the proper term.

Do some 'research' and find out why women DO NEED birth control medication.

 

When and where do the courts cease regarding the "right" of the religious to IMPOSE upon those who do not honor their particular faith?

A can of worms has been opened by the USSC.

 

Obamacare does not cover male contraception like vasectomies but cover sterilization for women. Democrats War on Men?

 

‘Moral equivalency’ much do you? You don’t get your way here. The SCOTUS reviewed the case and decided that it is unconstitutional for the government to force businesses that hold certain religious beliefs to provide something that goes against those beliefs. The 1st Amendment stands.

‘Put a stop to people’s religious BS’ how? First of all, what is this ‘religious BS’? Secondly, how do you propose to stop people exercising their constitutionally protected rights? I happen to disagree with most of what you’re posting here. I think it’s a bunch of BS. Does that mean I should put a stop to it simply because I disagree with it? Absolutely not! I respect the constitution and YOUR liberties far more than I do my disagreement with your points. Your desire to shut people up that you disagree with is the definition of fascism. Please tell me you don’t support this.

You’re talking about something completely different. None of these BC methods that could be used for medical reasons (hormonal imbalance, fibroids, etc…) are being denied at all. That’s not even part of this discussion. We are talking about birth control methods for the purpose of controlling pregnancy; and that not even most birth control options. We are talking about 4 specific medications that were determined to be abortifacients. And those are not even denied to anyone. The employees can still get these medications; just not through Hobby Lobby insurance. For the purpose of avoiding pregnancy, these medications are NOT a NEED.

 

That's irrelevant.

 

It's not MY way, it's being realistic.

Public Option, please. (That's what this is leading to.)

Public Option; people choose their own plan... forget the employer.

In this case, that would be coercion and compulsion.

One person's or entity's rights end, where they begin to step on another's. That will come out, in the end.

I'm not surprised.

Okay. I'm certain this Hobby Lobby ruling, will backfire upon the religious, in the end. It's coming.

I didn't imply that, you are making that baseless claim. It's obvious.

Remember what I said, about people coercing and compelling others. More court cases are on the way, bet on it.

Your desire to shut people up that you disagree with is the definition of fascism. Please tell me you don’t support this. Newer precedents will resolve the problems stirred by this BAD USSC decision; it's coming.

I'm talking about an employees NOT having their healthcare subjected to a RELIGIOUS test by their employer. In the case of safety and certain fitness limits, I can see where certain requirements/restrictions might apply.

The whole thing is a joke, to be negated by new laws and providing people better options, where "religion" won't dictate things to them.