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

I believe religious authorities should have to pay for enforcement of religious morals, not our secular and temporal State.

 

you have no power on one line and vow to fight on the next over something that just isn't happening.

sorrry, but if won't buy a bum a beer, it's not denying him his right to a frosty adult beverage.

 

Like I said, a Muslim business owner shouldn't be able to be forced to provide or purchase pork products as that is counter to their religious beliefs. I take that position because I believe that human beings should be free to exercise their religion. I know you disagree with that and think that government edicts should trump religious freedom but that isn't how things are done in this country, at least not yet.

Also, not forcing a Muslim to provide or purchase pork would NOT be pushing a "bit of Shariah law". It would be respecting religious freedom much like in the HL case.

 

Ok, enlighten us medically how they are the same?

 

Granted, no power here... only discussion.

Still, if you can't see what's "happening" (or assume the effects of the ruling are perfectly resolved/settled), I don't know what to tell you, so that you'll see more.

- - - Updated - - -

Why do people here keep playing stupid?

Wake the heck up!

- - - Updated - - -

The employees (unless it's a church) should NOT have their healthcare dictated/qualified by a religious 'boss'; simple as that.

 

Americans should NOT be forced by the government to engage in actions that are counter to their religious beliefs; simple as that.

Or, in other words:

Freedom of Religion > Obamacare

 

The compromise is this:

Not employing government to apply its POWER to compel of ensure someone 'honor' or comply with what is 'religious'. (To do otherwise is no mere slippery slope, it is a leap off of a CLIFF.)

 

No one is requiring the owners use those products. It really is that simple.

 

Without time to read each and every post, I did see Tomfoo's post and thought it was extremely well said. As for the thread/topic: [Why should Hobby Lobby's employees have to pay for Hobby Lobby's religious values?] My question (even before Tomfoo's post) was "Why should Hobby Lobby's owners have to pay for their empolyee's LACK of religious values or place the values/religious practices on the back-burner for some other practice/belief?" It simply doesn't make sense and what B.O. has done and continues to do is illegal/unConstitutional/unAMERICAN!!!!

 

They hired them did they not??? I guess it is okay for religion to discriminate now.

 

The ACA required them to provide those products, and providing those products was counter to their religious beliefs. It really is that simple.

I am not religious, BTW. I do, however, believe in protecting religious freedoms.

 

How correct and AMERICAN you are with that statement and I'm so glad to see someone post something for the ignorant to chew on. Look.....employers pay a % of what medical care the patient (employee) receives and B.O. was dead-set in FORCING Americans to go against their God/Morals/Values or be punished. That is not Constitutional and the 'slippery slope' mentioned earlier has already been met when B.O. was elected the first time.

 

Have to disagree here. Pregnancy is what happens when a woman's body is functioning normally. Viagra is used to repair a bodily dysfunction, and contraception is used to cause a bodily dysfunction.

Of corse I'm coming from the stance that any company, regardless of religious convictions, should be free to offer insurance plans that don't cover contraception at all. Economics would eventually eliminate zero-c plans, but that is far more acceptable than the government mandating treatment for people whose bodies are doing what they're supposed to.

 

Let the DOCTORS address their female patients about that; don't drag a Bible across my employment benefits, trying to tell me what you "believe" are my 'necessary' medical treatments.

 

Nonsense.

 

There is a difference between using lucre purchase products in our secular and temporal markets in our republic. If we use the example of some of the right, taxes are considered a form of theft and there is a religious injunction against theft.

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Commandments of Religion.

No one is forcing the owners to refrain from abstinence and just saying "no" to actually using any product in our markets.

- - - Updated - - -

There is a difference between using lucre purchase products in our secular and temporal markets in our republic. If we use the example of some of the right, taxes are considered a form of theft and there is a religious injunction against theft.

Our supreme law of the land is more supreme than even Commandments of Religion.

No one is forcing the owners to refrain from abstinence and just saying "no" to actually using any product in our markets.

How many meat sellers refrain from making money on meat products in mixed market economies that have religious freedom?

Why should the owner be able to decide for others what their health care choices should be, based merely on wealth under our form of Capitalism regardless of our form of Socialism.

 

Why do you think you can dictate what they spend their own money on?

 

It is part of overall compensation and "earned" or "commanded" by market participants via market based wage information in that market.

 

They are self insured so they are paying for the insurance. It is a benefit, not compensation.

 

Benefits are part of a compensation package and are a market based metric upon which to base rational choices in that market.

 

Irrelevant.

 

Actually...not only relevant but an absolute truth that destroys your argument.

If you boss decided to arbitrarily cut your benefits....would you feel like you were making less?

 

Doesn't matter. This employer is self insured meaning it is their money paying for the insurance. So you expect the employee to tell the employer what the employer can spend their own money on? This is something pretty well understood except by the hysterical few.

 

How do you cut something one never had in the first place?

 

They did have it...the entire case was to remove it, obviously.