-
@T.H.O.U.: I have a right to benefits if the government has dictated that I do! If they say a company has to provide me with insurance AND the insurance has to cover this, then yes, I absolutely have the right to them!
-
@Adira: No...generics are only covered. I pay full price for my NuvaRing...or maybe $10 less. So ya, not covered anyways.
-
@Mrs D: He isn't paying for contraceptives though. He's paying for health insurance. Employees are going out and seeking or not seeking contraceptives. Same as when he gives them money. Some money will go for what he deems appropriate some will go towards activities he deems inappropriate.
-
@Mrs D: Of course I wouldn't force him to remain open - that's his choice and I'm sure other companies would rise up to replace his and hire his former employees since there will be a market for that kind of company and people looking for work!
And saying it's his company and he can do what he wants - are you saying if he wants to discriminate against African Americans and not hire them solely based on that, then that's his choice???
-
@Mrs D: Setting aside the contraceptives issue, how do you get around the fact that the Supremes have held that a for-profit corporation qualified for a religious exemption from a generally applicable law? This is a complete--and abrupt--departure from precedent . . . there is no case law support for the notion that free exercise rights pertain to for-profit corporations (of any kind).
-
@Maysprout: He's still allowed to choose what he pays for. He can negotiate to include or not include BCP in his insurance he offers. He doesn't want it included - but he cannot control what his employees do with their wages. I obviously would not support him choosing how employees wages can be spent. This is a benefit he is forced to offer - and he simply wants to limit the benefit he is forced to offer in line with his beliefs.
-
And now for the rest of the story...
http://www.buzzfeed.com/bennyjohnson/the-2014-running-of-the-interns
Just a little levity
-
@Adira: Sure, if he wants to be sued and have massive public outcry than would likely end his company and wealth. Why not let him commit economic suicide?!
Obviously I am not saying I think it is right to discriminate and I myself would never do that. But as I have said - I am all for letting people run their companies as they want...even if that means running them in to the ground by making terrible business and human decisions.
-
@Adira: I don't agree with Obamacare, so we are never going to agree on this.
-
@Adira @MrsD Conceptually I still have such a hard time with this ruling because it seems as though individual religious freedom is being trampled since CEOs and company owners can choose to not provide contraceptive coverage on the basis of their religion for their employees who may not follow the same religion. Hobby Lobby is a corporation, not a sole proprietorship, meaning that for many federal purposes it is an entity wholly separate from the CEO and Founder.
-
@Mrs D: . . . and the result of this (unprecedented) exemption is that HL can control/direct how its employees and dependents spend their wages by making these medications/services unavailable to them.
-
@MsLipGloss: coming back to the actual ruling...sensitive issues aside...yes as I stated I was surprised bc as you mentioned it is very unprecedented. I have not read the details of the ruling and/or the opinions...but I do look forward to it and seeing the rationalization in how they got there.
-
@MrsPastryLady: Yep. And you can be darn sure the individual owners will continue to seek the protection of the *corporate veil* for all matters other than this.
-
@Mrs D: I think you will be surprised . . . but do hang around for Ginsburg's dissent. It truly is worth the read (and not many opinions/dissents are!) and she is dead on (in so many ways) and highlights the broader implications of this ruling.
-
@vinomama:
-
@MsLipGloss exactly! Which is what I find so concerning about this ruling in the first place because we already treat corporations and companies as individuals in a whole host of other aspects of government. There are far-reaching implications for this ruling beyond ACA or reproductive rights.
-
@MrsPastryLady: I somewhat disagree that they are completely separate. He's bearing the majority of the risk here in his role.
@MsLipGloss: No one is telling them to go get BCP - they make that decision on their own. And no one told them to work for hl either...
@MsLipGloss: I will read it...though I generally have a hard time reading anything she has to write or say...shocker as we clearly live on opposite sides of the spectrum right?!
-
@MrsD in many ways he bears no legal risk for many of his corporation's activities (though he does bear some). His corporation is a separate legal entity in most government activities (tax purposes, etc.)
-
@MrsPastryLady: legal yes...but financial I would completely disagree. Look at Sterling in LA - makes one personal comment and he is forced to sell his team. It would have been more interesting to make him keep his team and see if he could have gotten anyone to play for him...when everyone refused to play for him (bc of what he said) his team would have lost all value...instead the guy is going to make money because the NBA stepped in. Would have been better to let him crash and burn for his stupid comments.
All I am saying is that Mr Green's pocket is smaller bc of the healthcare benefits (no matter what they are) that he provides his employees. He is the direct beneficiary of profits and directly hurt from losses.
-
@Mrs D: I am not a fan of the mechanisms used/relied on to put the ACA in place . . . I am, however, a HUGE fan of citizens having access to healthcare. Even so, the Court got this one wrong . . . it's not even a close call.
HL is now speaking out of both sides of its mouth . . . (and it is an IT, it is not a he) as it will continue to enjoy the multitude of benefits of being a for-profit corporation, while now also being permitted to take advantage of privileges previously held by only non-profit religious organizations. And better yet, while enjoying these tax shelters and corporate profits/ salaries, it can now force the individual citizens to pay for what it doesn't want to.
-
@MrsD I understand your position, my larger concern is how this ruling will be applied in the future as more corporations are allowed to utilize status that in the past has been only granted to individuals. I don't think when the founding fathers wrote the constitution would have envisioned that "we the people" could end up including corporations and companies.
-
@Mrs D: Health insurance doesn't belong to the employer it belongs to the employee. The employer is not directly buying birth control anymore so than when he gives an employee a paycheck.
-
@Mrs D: With regard to people working for HL . . . it's not enough that citizens have jobs . . . they are now required to only seek employment with employers who aren't exempted from this provision of the ACA as well? I just can't get behind that. Because even if I take your argument at face value and assume, as you have mentioned, that the corporation is an extension of a man, how do his rights/religious convictions matter more than yours? or mine? THEY DON'T. That's moral relativism.
-
FYI, if anyone was interested in more info on the money HL has invested into companies that produce the contraception they morally oppose, here are (a ton of) details: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/04/hobby-lobby-retirement-plan-invested-emergency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
-
@MrsPastryLady: Unfortunately there is a lot of crap going on now that I doubt the founding fathers would be proud of - this may be just a small example.
Its probably time for me to just respectfully agree to disagree. I understand why some of you are concerned what doors this will open up and how corporations will find more loopholes. I guess I just fundamentally have a "less is more" belief when it comes to government. I simply dont believe they can run a business better than competent business men and I dont believe they can spend my money better than me. So I will always be pleased to see steps towards reducing their ability to tell people or business how to run themselves.
I do appreciate how civil this discussion has been, I always appreciate others opinions and am happy when different views can be discussed without personal attacks - especially with sensitive issues!
-
@MsLipGloss: We all make decisions about who we are willing to work for each and everyday...this is just a new component of it. Would you work for a company run by a rapist? No - you'd choose not to even if that was the only company hiring. (Or maybe you would - that would be your choice.) Yes, I think it is each of our responsibilities to research our employees and their benefit plans offered. We all make sacrifices for our jobs...I picked one with terrible benefits...bc it had other perks.
They dont matter more than yours - you can choose to work anywhere else. But why does your desire to have BCP outweigh their desire to not 'fund' that?
-
I haven't read through all the responses so I won't respond to anyone. But my personal opinion? Not cool that private individuals who own companies can impose their religious beliefs on their employees. I can see maybe, MAYBE, a non-profit religious organization (i.e a church) being allowed to impose their beliefs in this way. Maybe. But a for profit company? Not okay. If they want to operate in the US for profit, they should have to abide by the laws of this country.
-
@Mrs D: because HL is a for-profit corporation. End of story. We could be talking about HL not wanting to pay for afternoon Popsicles as required under a generally applicable law. The result is the same. Unless and until HL decides to become a non-profit religious organization, it doesn't have proper grounds to assert the religious freedom exemption from anything, let alone contraceptives.
ETA: this decision makes them matter more. which is why it's wrong.
-
@Mrs D: I, for one am okay with there being things the Founding Fathers would not be proud of. Some of our founding fathers owned slaves and didn't believe in women's rights. As both a Black person and a woman, I don't hold these men to some higher standard because they helped create this country. The Constitution is a living document, our country grows and changes. I don't agree with this interpretation from the Supreme Court and I feel like this is going to open up a Pandora's box/slippery slope of religion being used to deny rights.
-
@MrsD This has been a very civil discussion. Thanks for a great conversation.
-
@MrsPastryLady: @Mrs D: agree! very civil and thought-provoking. ETA: and I see now the *agree to disagree* above! Have a good night lovelies!
-
@Mrs D: Many people in this country do not have the luxury of choosing where to work. Many are in dire need of jobs in order to survive and must take any job they can get regardless of whether or not they agree with their employer's beliefs. It's not so simple as choosing your employer. Why should women who don't have a choice be denied certain reproductive/health rights?
We are taking more and more choice away from women in this country and it frightens me.
-
@DigAPony: "Why should women who don't have a choice be denied certain reproductive/health rights?" <--- Amen to this. And did you know male Hobby Lobby workers can still have their vasectomies covered? Hmm...
-
I'm appalled, saddened, and disgusted. I did read parts of Samuel Alito's ruling and Ruth Bader Ginsburg's dissent, and it's amazing to see the contrast-he's doing the craziest rhetorical gymnastics while she's speaking in really straightforward clear terms. Shame on the 5 justices who ruled that individual health and quality of life and privacy take a backseat to a corporation's religious beliefs. Oh wait, a corporation can have beliefs? I guess so!
Not to mention that Hobby Lobby's opposition to contraception such as bcp, iuds, and the morning after pill is part of the anti-choice movement's junk science LIE that contraception = abortion. (Abortion, last I checked, is legal and valid anyway, so it's doubly stupid.)
So glad that I boycott this shitty store and their bigoted owners, so sorry for anyone who works there who might want or need the family planning or health benefits of contraception.
-
@MrsSCB: and probably unrestricted access to Viagra (and other *ED* drugs).
-
@MsLipGloss: You make an excellent point re: " We could be talking about HL not wanting to pay for afternoon Popsicles as required under a generally applicable law. The result is the same." It doesn't matter WHAT we're talking about - it's the fact that a for-profit corporation is being exempt from a LAW that should apply to them. It really doesn't matter WHAT the law is about.
But I get the impression that the reason many are FOR this ruling is because they oppose ObamaCare in general and it isn't necessarily because of this one particular issue. I think it's hard to argue this point when we're technically arguing two different things. One seems to be arguing in general against everything ObamaCare is, while the other is arguing that this company shouldn't be exempt from the law, period, regardless of whether they agree with the law or not.
But I agree that this conversation has been very civil and I thank everyone for that! This is definitely one of those instances where we'll have to agree to disagree! I can't persuade everyone to my way of thinking, no matter how much I want to.
-
@Mrs D: Thank you for saying stuff i would be too "scared" to say on here.
-
@Adira: That's a fair assessment, and definitely true for me . . . I disagree with this decision because of the for-profit/non-profit jazz. For me, the analysis ends there (which is why I think this decision is particularly nefarious . . . people are so distracted with ACA/Obamacare that they don't see the forest for the trees, so to speak, with regard to the practical impact of the Court's decision regarding corporations).
-
@hellocupcake:
I'm used to being the crazy opinionated right winger - and am general pretty outspoken! I am just appreciative that everyone was respectful of each other's opinions here! We all grow when we have open minded discussions with people who share other opinions than our own!
-
@MsLipGloss: Yup, Viagra, too. The message seems pretty clear: Men, feel free to have as much sex as you want! Women, keep it in your pants.
- Google Plus
- Stumbleupon
- Twitter
- Facebook
- Pinterest
- Favorite1
292 comments