NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

mysticl · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

mysticl said:

JCbride2015 said:

banana468 said:

Some companies are small enough that insurance isn't offered at all. That's an exemption WITH the ACA. And Hobby Lobby does offer birth control. It's 2 types emergency contraception, IUDs and abortion coverage that they didn't want to offer.

This is factually true, but it's misleading in regards to the breadth of the ruling. Yes, HL itself only objected to certain methods (and yeah @chibiyui, I think abortions were never required to be covered in the first place).

But the ruling itself sets legal precedent that an employer can entirely refuse contraception at all, and also get an exemption for other medical services on religious grounds: IVs, infusions, maybe vaccinations if based on sincere belief. In fact just today, SCOTUS affirmed lower court rulings which held that Catholic shareholders of corporations could refuse all forms of BC to their employees. So this has already been applied to deny BC entirely.

I am most worried about the troubling precedent for corporate religious exemptions for all types of stuff, not just birth control. The doors have been flung open and this is going to be a really long time before the right case comes up again to fix it.

Very good point. What happens when an employer decides it's against their religion to employ women, or divorced people, or people who are "living in sin", or people of a different religion? Will they be able to claim an exception to the anti-discrimination laws based on religious belief?

Analytically this would work, but of course there are anti discrimination laws in place that RFRA cannot allow the opt out of. Such as refusal to employ women or certain religions.

But what's to stop them from trying? Laws can be overturned. It's happened before.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

mysticl said:

JCbride2015 said:

mysticl said:

JCbride2015 said:

banana468 said:

Some companies are small enough that insurance isn't offered at all. That's an exemption WITH the ACA. And Hobby Lobby does offer birth control. It's 2 types emergency contraception, IUDs and abortion coverage that they didn't want to offer.

This is factually true, but it's misleading in regards to the breadth of the ruling. Yes, HL itself only objected to certain methods (and yeah @chibiyui, I think abortions were never required to be covered in the first place).

But the ruling itself sets legal precedent that an employer can entirely refuse contraception at all, and also get an exemption for other medical services on religious grounds: IVs, infusions, maybe vaccinations if based on sincere belief. In fact just today, SCOTUS affirmed lower court rulings which held that Catholic shareholders of corporations could refuse all forms of BC to their employees. So this has already been applied to deny BC entirely.

I am most worried about the troubling precedent for corporate religious exemptions for all types of stuff, not just birth control. The doors have been flung open and this is going to be a really long time before the right case comes up again to fix it.

Very good point. What happens when an employer decides it's against their religion to employ women, or divorced people, or people who are "living in sin", or people of a different religion? Will they be able to claim an exception to the anti-discrimination laws based on religious belief?

Analytically this would work, but of course there are anti discrimination laws in place that RFRA cannot allow the opt out of. Such as refusal to employ women or certain religions.

But what's to stop them from trying? Laws can be overturned. It's happened before.

They could always try to overturn laws like Title VII through the legislative process. But this case would not be precedent that would help them. This case is limited to whether RFRA can give a corporate an exemption from the ACA. So it could be applied to all sorts of medical situations, and by analogy to other employment situations, but fortunately it won't be wholesale "I refuse to employ women" craziness.

This is a terrible decision, but it's not quite as broad as that. Thank God.

AlexaF2014 · July 2014

I did something dumb and engaged with the trolls on Facebook. So far, I've been told to "do my homework before commenting" because I quoted RBG, and everyone commenting has been male. Of course, to them it's all about "religious freedoms" and "gov'ment mandates." Oh, and I guess HLC is a "small family business" (21K employees, 500+ stores? They're not Wal-mart, but they ain't small either).

chibiyui · July 2014

AlexaF2014 said:

I did something dumb and engaged with the trolls on Facebook. So far, I've been told to "do my homework before commenting" because I quoted RBG, and everyone commenting has been male. Of course, to them it's all about "religious freedoms" and "gov'ment mandates." Oh, and I guess HLC is a "small family business" (21K employees, 500+ stores? They're not Wal-mart, but they ain't small either).

Ha. And Wal-Mart is considered a closely held corporation too.

I really, really hate it when men are like, "Birth control isn't necessary, my religious rights are more important then you!" like, first, fuck off. Second, I have no interest in harming your religious rights, I fail to see how my utueros is hurting you, when you are not privy to it's business.

I engaged with a FB troll. This girl I went to High School with and oh my god she had no comprehension of any of it, She just thought people where upset because they couldn't get free birth control. And if the Catholic hospital she works for doesn't even proscribe birth control, why should anyone have it covered on insurance? It's like are you really that fucking dumb.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

I have engaged a bit too, but only when the crazies come over to my or my friends' statuses and comment. If they've waded into the waters, they're gonna get bitten. So far it's been mostly civil though.

I also was in a comment spree on George Takei's blog about this which was hilarious. Unfortunately the comments are well organized enough to see who's responding to whom exactly, so it just became a cluster. It was a fun way to get some frustration out, though.

My friend is keeping a tally on her Facebook of her feminist friends' reactions, and she says I win first place for "unbridled outrage."

chibiyui · July 2014

I was bad. It was crazy girls status. Three of us were actually having a very civil discussion about it and then she came back in very incoherent and upset people were discussing it. I told her if she didn't want people responding to her opinions, maybe she should post on Facebook, as thats kinda the whole purpose of facebook.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

chibiyui said:

I was bad. It was crazy girls status. Three of us were actually having a very civil discussion about it and then she came back in very incoherent and upset people were discussing it. I told her if she didn't want people responding to her opinions, maybe she should post on Facebook, as thats kinda the whole purpose of facebook.

My favorite tactic is to go full Lawyer Mode on the idiots. Lots of discussion of the corporate veil, implications for cases in the lower courts, long-winded discussion of RFRA. Using ALL the big words.

One girl from college who butted into a discussion among some of my friends and me actually ended up messaging me to say she doesn't agree with me but if I want to go to Washington and be a women's rights advocate, I'll do a really good job.

I can't wait until I'm high up enough in my firm to start getting really good pro bono cases. My firm is very progressive and actually wrote one of the most influential briefs in the DOMA case, so I know they are supportive of women's rights issues and I would have lots of leeway to take important women's rights pro bono cases.

AlexaF2014 · July 2014

Of course I come up with a good come-back after the fact. Indulge in my snark?

"Homework is what school children do. The adult word you're looking for is "research" and this is mine:" and insert links to RBG's dissent, definition of abortificants according to the Catholic church (where IUD, Plan B and Ella are NOT listed!), and a list of definitions of logical fallacies.

Of course, the discussion has died down now and I don't really feel like stirring the pot again, so for now this post stays off FB... for now.

thisismynickname2 · July 2014

At JC, definitely I understand perfect world versus the world we're in. However, I do choose to stick to my perfect world beliefs.

Saying, "Oh, well, this is what we'll have to deal with" without acknowledging that band-aid after band-aid after band-aid only causes MORE problems.... I just can't.

Even just the ACA in the first place: it's not affordable "care", it's affordable "insurance". This is just another band-aid, and it's clearly causing more and more problems.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

mysticl said:

JCbride2015 said:

banana468 said:

Some companies are small enough that insurance isn't offered at all. That's an exemption WITH the ACA. And Hobby Lobby does offer birth control. It's 2 types emergency contraception, IUDs and abortion coverage that they didn't want to offer.

This is factually true, but it's misleading in regards to the breadth of the ruling. Yes, HL itself only objected to certain methods (and yeah @chibiyui, I think abortions were never required to be covered in the first place).

But the ruling itself sets legal precedent that an employer can entirely refuse contraception at all, and also get an exemption for other medical services on religious grounds: IVs, infusions, maybe vaccinations if based on sincere belief. In fact just today, SCOTUS affirmed lower court rulings which held that Catholic shareholders of corporations could refuse all forms of BC to their employees. So this has already been applied to deny BC entirely.

I am most worried about the troubling precedent for corporate religious exemptions for all types of stuff, not just birth control. The doors have been flung open and this is going to be a really long time before the right case comes up again to fix it.

Very good point. What happens when an employer decides it's against their religion to employ women, or divorced people, or people who are "living in sin", or people of a different religion? Will they be able to claim an exception to the anti-discrimination laws based on religious belief?

Analytically this would work, but of course there are anti discrimination laws in place that RFRA cannot allow the opt out of. Such as refusal to employ women or certain religions.

But here is the rub. Let's say you don't want to employ women, or you only want to employ Jehovah's Witnesses. Just pick the healthcare plans (due to your "sincerely held religious beliefs") that don't include contraceptive coverage and blood transfusions. You won't be saying "Women need not apply", you'll just be setting it up so that women don't apply, or the ones that do are desperate and maybe less qualified, so you don't catch any flack for not hiring them. It is an insidious way to exclude women (and potentially other groups) from the workforce. Maybe it is not the intent, but it could be used that way.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

Liatris2010 said:

JCbride2015 said:

mysticl said:

JCbride2015 said:

banana468 said:

Some companies are small enough that insurance isn't offered at all. That's an exemption WITH the ACA. And Hobby Lobby does offer birth control. It's 2 types emergency contraception, IUDs and abortion coverage that they didn't want to offer.

This is factually true, but it's misleading in regards to the breadth of the ruling. Yes, HL itself only objected to certain methods (and yeah @chibiyui, I think abortions were never required to be covered in the first place).

But the ruling itself sets legal precedent that an employer can entirely refuse contraception at all, and also get an exemption for other medical services on religious grounds: IVs, infusions, maybe vaccinations if based on sincere belief. In fact just today, SCOTUS affirmed lower court rulings which held that Catholic shareholders of corporations could refuse all forms of BC to their employees. So this has already been applied to deny BC entirely.

I am most worried about the troubling precedent for corporate religious exemptions for all types of stuff, not just birth control. The doors have been flung open and this is going to be a really long time before the right case comes up again to fix it.

Very good point. What happens when an employer decides it's against their religion to employ women, or divorced people, or people who are "living in sin", or people of a different religion? Will they be able to claim an exception to the anti-discrimination laws based on religious belief?

Analytically this would work, but of course there are anti discrimination laws in place that RFRA cannot allow the opt out of. Such as refusal to employ women or certain religions.

But here is the rub. Let's say you don't want to employ women, or you only want to employ Jehovah's Witnesses. Just pick the healthcare plans (due to your "sincerely held religious beliefs") that don't include contraceptive coverage and blood transfusions. You won't be saying "Women need not apply", you'll just be setting it up so that women don't apply, or the ones that do are desperate and maybe less qualified, so you don't catch any flack for not hiring them. It is an insidious way to exclude women (and potentially other groups) from the workforce. Maybe it is not the intent, but it could be used that way.

Yes. I have thought of that before but for some reason it didn't come to mind when I posted that.

I think this will be a big blow to women in the workforce. If companies can stop allowing contraceptive coverage for religious reasons, it won't be long before they also stop covering other women's healthcare. How about STD testing, because you must be having sex out of wedlock and therefore sinning? Coverage for prenatal care for babies born out of wedlock? These are somewhat extreme examples, but would all have precedent in the HL decision.

Women would then have to shop around and work for only employers who support women's healthcare rights. Eventually it would indeed lead to a segregated workforce, where conservative religious types can keep women from even applying to work at their company.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

chibiyui · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

Please explain how an employee using money earned by working for a Catholic organization to buy contraceptives makes the employer any less morally culpable then if it is used as a part of a health insurance plan.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

chibiyui said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.
Please explain how an employee using money earned by working for a Catholic organization to buy contraceptives makes the employer any less morally culpable then if it is used as a part of a health insurance plan.

The employer is out of the equation with the salary scenario. With insurance, the employer is mandated to purchase a plan that includes contraceptives, which brings them back into the equation.

lyndausvi · July 2014

BC is a female issue, however a lot of women are insured through their husband's (I'm one of those). So they can lose good male talent because of their policies effecting the wife. Blood transfusions and vaccine effect everyone. Who wants to work for a company who will not cover a living saving blood transfusion or vaccines for your child?

I'm might live in fantasy land, but my hope is that free market will keep from these extreme cases becoming mainstream. 85% of businesses who provide healthcare covered things like BC before it was even mandated by ACA. To me that means that businesses believe it's a benefit worth having.

ETA

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

I put this in my "Too Bad" category. You don't live in a country that is a theocracy, that means sometime tax money or the health insurance you provide your employees with to get a tax break doesn't line up with your personal beliefs. I'm not a big fan of drone strikes, water boarding, or Guantanamo Bay, but my tax dollars still go to pay for those things. Jewish and Muslim people don't eat pork, but pork is served in public schools and covered by food stamps, paid for by their tax dollars. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most federal and state uniforms are a poly blend. God thinks that is an abomination. We can't have a line item veto for everything every religion doesn't like. There are too many things, and may of them are inconsequential (fabric of two fibers, why do you care god?!?!?) or none of anyone's business (medicines prescribed by my doctor, the contents of my uterus).

chibiyui · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.
Please explain how an employee using money earned by working for a Catholic organization to buy contraceptives makes the employer any less morally culpable then if it is used as a part of a health insurance plan.

The employer is out of the equation with the salary scenario. With insurance, the employer is mandated to purchase a plan that includes contraceptives, which brings them back into the equation.

Really? Cause the argument I hear is paying for contraceptives is morally wrong. If an employees pay is being use for contraceptives, like it or not your money is still being being used in a "sinful" way. You can't stop that because your not allowed to tell your employee how to spend their paycheck. Why you should be allowed to tell them how to use their health care, which is compensation for employment is beyond me.

All this does is place undue stress on women and their families.

JCbride2015 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.
Please explain how an employee using money earned by working for a Catholic organization to buy contraceptives makes the employer any less morally culpable then if it is used as a part of a health insurance plan.

The employer is out of the equation with the salary scenario. With insurance, the employer is mandated to purchase a plan that includes contraceptives, which brings them back into the equation.

Your moral or religious feelings about BC should be irrelevant in the employment context. Period. If you don't want to provide BC for other people, don't employ 23,000 other people.

Furthermore, it's not like the owners of HL are buying the BC. The employees just want the option to select an insurance plan that includes BC coverage-- the employees would still pay premiums, they don't want it for free.

I especially have problems with this as a matter of corporate law. By incorporating their business, the HL shareholders have chosen to avail themselves of certain government benefits. Those government benefits revolve around separating the individuals from the business, thus insulating the individuals from liability. That's why they chose the corporate form, and not a sole proprietorship or LLC. To insulate themselves as individuals from the company. Now they want to push their individual beliefs onto the corporate form. They chose the corporate form to separate themselves when it has financial benefits for them, but now they want to impose their personal religious beliefs? No, that's not how corporate law works. They shouldn't have it both ways.

SCOTUS has decided that the religious beliefs of a few powerful men who own this corporation are more important than the religious beliefs of 23,000 employees. And women's health is not a public health concern.

I feel like a second-class citizen and I'm mad as hell.

ETA: and @sarahbear31, you are more than welcome to engage in debate even though you are new. Just keep it respectful. Hi!

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

Liatris2010 said:

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

I put this in my "Too Bad" category. You don't live in a country that is a theocracy, that means sometime tax money or the health insurance you provide your employees with to get a tax break doesn't line up with your personal beliefs. I'm not a big fan of drone strikes, water boarding, or Guantanamo Bay, but my tax dollars still go to pay for those things. Jewish and Muslim people don't eat pork, but pork is served in public schools and covered by food stamps, paid for by their tax dollars. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most federal and state uniforms are a poly blend. God thinks that is an abomination. We can't have a line item veto for everything every religion doesn't like. There are too many things, and may of them are inconsequential (fabric of two fibers, why do you care god?!?!?) or none of anyone's business (medicines prescribed by my doctor, the contents of my uterus).

Apples and oranges.

We're not talking about what tax dollars provide; we're talking about a person being asked to provide something that violates his/her religion. This would be similar to telling all deli owners that they must provide bacon (including Jews).

Also, you're grasping at straws here. Is there a faith tradition that still holds that Leviticus 19:19 is true today?

FiancB · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

I was raised Catholic and tend to be a bit more sympathetic to this issue than many, but I agree this is in the "too bad" category. We were talking about a corporation. Corporations do not sin. Corporations do not have to worry about going to heaven or hell.

I might add that Hobby Lobby is still cool with investing in companies that provide birth control.

Plus, Hobby Lobby advertises itself as being a Christian company, not a Catholic one. Protestant churches are not explicitly against birth control. So this whole thing doesn't even make sense. It is such a blatant thinly veiled excuse to get out of paying $$$. The argument is much more understandable for, say, a Catholic university or hospital than it is for a chain that sells cheap crafting crap.

mysticl · July 2014

JCbride2015 said:

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.
Please explain how an employee using money earned by working for a Catholic organization to buy contraceptives makes the employer any less morally culpable then if it is used as a part of a health insurance plan.

The employer is out of the equation with the salary scenario. With insurance, the employer is mandated to purchase a plan that includes contraceptives, which brings them back into the equation.

Your moral or religious feelings about BC should be irrelevant in the employment context. Period. If you don't want to provide BC for other people, don't employ 23,000 other people.

Furthermore, it's not like the owners of HL are buying the BC. The employees just want the option to select an insurance plan that includes BC coverage-- the employees would still pay premiums, they don't want it for free.

I especially have problems with this as a matter of corporate law. By incorporating their business, the HL shareholders have chosen to avail themselves of certain government benefits. Those government benefits revolve around separating the individuals from the business, thus insulating the individuals from liability. That's why they chose the corporate form, and not a sole proprietorship or LLC. To insulate themselves as individuals from the company. Now they want to push their individual beliefs onto the corporate form. They chose the corporate form to separate themselves when it has financial benefits for them, but now they want to impose their personal religious beliefs? No, that's not how corporate law works. They shouldn't have it both ways.

SCOTUS has decided that the religious beliefs of a few powerful men who own this corporation are more important than the religious beliefs of 23,000 employees. And women's health is not a public health concern.

I feel like a second-class citizen and I'm mad as hell.

ETA: and @sarahbear31, you are more than welcome to engage in debate even though you are new. Just keep it respectful. Hi!

Thank you for putting my thoughts into words. I know what I meant but not how to frame it in the context of the law.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

Liatris2010 said:

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

I put this in my "Too Bad" category. You don't live in a country that is a theocracy, that means sometime tax money or the health insurance you provide your employees with to get a tax break doesn't line up with your personal beliefs. I'm not a big fan of drone strikes, water boarding, or Guantanamo Bay, but my tax dollars still go to pay for those things. Jewish and Muslim people don't eat pork, but pork is served in public schools and covered by food stamps, paid for by their tax dollars. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most federal and state uniforms are a poly blend. God thinks that is an abomination. We can't have a line item veto for everything every religion doesn't like. There are too many things, and may of them are inconsequential (fabric of two fibers, why do you care god?!?!?) or none of anyone's business (medicines prescribed by my doctor, the contents of my uterus).

Apples and oranges.

We're not talking about what tax dollars provide; we're talking about a person being asked to provide something that violates his/her religion. This would be similar to telling all deli owners that they must provide bacon (including Jews).

Also, you're grasping at straws here. Is there a faith tradition that still holds that Leviticus 19:19 is true today?

It's not apples and oranges. Paying for part of employees' health care is part of the compensation they receive for doing their job. If using their salary on BC is okay, using their health insurance on BC should be okay too.

Plenty of religious hold tight to other parts of Lev. I can't help it if religion loves shrimp but hates gay sex. I can't help if religious people pick and choose the parts of their holy books to follow and the parts to ignore.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

chibiyui said:

chibiyui said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.
Please explain how an employee using money earned by working for a Catholic organization to buy contraceptives makes the employer any less morally culpable then if it is used as a part of a health insurance plan.

The employer is out of the equation with the salary scenario. With insurance, the employer is mandated to purchase a plan that includes contraceptives, which brings them back into the equation.
Really? Cause the argument I hear is paying for contraceptives is morally wrong. If an employees pay is being use for contraceptives, like it or not your money is still being being used in a "sinful" way. You can't stop that because your not allowed to tell your employee how to spend their paycheck. Why you should be allowed to tell them how to use their health care, which is compensation for employment is beyond me. All this does is place undue stress on women and their families.

As soon as the employer signs the paycheck, it is no longer his / her money. The employer purchases the health care coverage, and it is a purchase that he / she doesn't want to make because it violates his / her faith.

And it's not a matter of HOW they use their health care. It's a matter of who pays for it.

Liatris2010 · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

chibiyui said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.
Please explain how an employee using money earned by working for a Catholic organization to buy contraceptives makes the employer any less morally culpable then if it is used as a part of a health insurance plan.

The employer is out of the equation with the salary scenario. With insurance, the employer is mandated to purchase a plan that includes contraceptives, which brings them back into the equation.
Really? Cause the argument I hear is paying for contraceptives is morally wrong. If an employees pay is being use for contraceptives, like it or not your money is still being being used in a "sinful" way. You can't stop that because your not allowed to tell your employee how to spend their paycheck. Why you should be allowed to tell them how to use their health care, which is compensation for employment is beyond me. All this does is place undue stress on women and their families.

As soon as the employer signs the paycheck, it is no longer his / her money. The employer purchases the health care coverage, and it is a purchase that he / she doesn't want to make because it violates his / her faith.

And it's not a matter of HOW they use their health care. It's a matter of who pays for it.

But the employer is a middle man in this scenario. Instead of paying $$ to the employee that she would use on health insurance, the employer pays that money to the insurance company on the employee's behalf. Your employer doesn't contribute to your insurance out of the kindness of its corporate heart, it does it because you earned the money they are using to pay for it by going to work and doing your job.

chibiyui · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

sarahbear31 said:

chibiyui said:

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.
Please explain how an employee using money earned by working for a Catholic organization to buy contraceptives makes the employer any less morally culpable then if it is used as a part of a health insurance plan.

The employer is out of the equation with the salary scenario. With insurance, the employer is mandated to purchase a plan that includes contraceptives, which brings them back into the equation.

Really? Cause the argument I hear is paying for contraceptives is morally wrong. If an employees pay is being use for contraceptives, like it or not your money is still being being used in a "sinful" way. You can't stop that because your not allowed to tell your employee how to spend their paycheck. Why you should be allowed to tell them how to use their health care, which is compensation for employment is beyond me.

All this does is place undue stress on women and their families.

As soon as the employer signs the paycheck, it is no longer his / her money. The employer purchases the health care coverage, and it is a purchase that he / she doesn't want to make because it violates his / her faith.

And it's not a matter of HOW they use their health care. It's a matter of who pays for it.

That is extremely tenuous at best.

Either way you look at it, employee compensation is still being used for contraception. But one way places financial burden on the employees, and allows a corporation, which doesn't go to confession, to save money and still earn a tax break.

Pretty sure greed is a sin.

Also. I'm sorry. You are allowed to believe whatever you want, but your religion shouldn't affect my health and well being. This ruling is bullshit. You believe contraception is sinful, don't take it. Don't make it more difficult for me to obtain because you disagree with it.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

FiancB said:

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

I was raised Catholic and tend to be a bit more sympathetic to this issue than many, but I agree this is in the "too bad" category. We were talking about a corporation. Corporations do not sin. Corporations do not have to worry about going to heaven or hell.

I might add that Hobby Lobby is still cool with investing in companies that provide birth control.

Plus, Hobby Lobby advertises itself as being a Christian company, not a Catholic one. Protestant churches are not explicitly against birth control. So this whole thing doesn't even make sense. It is such a blatant thinly veiled excuse to get out of paying $$$. The argument is much more understandable for, say, a Catholic university or hospital than it is for a chain that sells cheap crafting crap.

I know that Hobby Lobby is a Christian store. If it were Catholic, they would have objected to all of the contraceptives and not just 4 of them (which I still think was random, by the way). My understanding is that they chose those 4 contraceptives because of the idea that they cause abortions. (which I still think is random because most forms of oral contraceptives alter the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation).

I also heard about the 401k investments, which I do find to be disturbing. I honestly have only seen that information reported by sites that have an obvious bias, and I'm curious to hear about it from a source that is more middle-of-the-road.

I'm just saying that this decision sets a precedent for other cases for Catholic business owners. There is already good news for EWTN (a Catholic television station).

jdluvr06 · July 2014

I have a quick question because I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look it up. I thought that HL was still providing some types of BC but not others, like Plan B and IUDs?

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

chibiyui, we obviously won't see eye to eye on this. I just came to this site with a WTF question about a vow renewal, and some of my friends said that the forums here are helpful (which I agree!). I was just surfing around and found this thread. The discussion seemed to be one sided and I wanted to offer a perspective from the other side of the fence.

chibiyui · July 2014

sarahbear31 said:

FiancB said:

sarahbear31 said:

grumbledore said:

So stupid. Providing employees with health insurance that covers birth control in no way whatthefucksoever impinges on these idiots' right to religious freedom. They are still allowed to believe whatever the hell they want.

I am so sick of "religious freedom" being construed as "I should have the right to impinge your freedom because of my religious beliefs."

I know I'm new here, and I realize I may be walking myself into a shitstorm, but let me offer some perspective.

I'm a Catholic, and covering contraceptives in insurance plans is a religious freedom issue for us. Taking contraceptives for the purposes of preventing a pregnancy is a sin. That is commonly known. What many people don't realize is that providing contraceptives for someone else is also a sin. So, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, providing contraceptives for an employee via insurance coverage is considered a sin.

I was raised Catholic and tend to be a bit more sympathetic to this issue than many, but I agree this is in the "too bad" category. We were talking about a corporation. Corporations do not sin. Corporations do not have to worry about going to heaven or hell.

I might add that Hobby Lobby is still cool with investing in companies that provide birth control.

Plus, Hobby Lobby advertises itself as being a Christian company, not a Catholic one. Protestant churches are not explicitly against birth control. So this whole thing doesn't even make sense. It is such a blatant thinly veiled excuse to get out of paying $$$. The argument is much more understandable for, say, a Catholic university or hospital than it is for a chain that sells cheap crafting crap.

I know that Hobby Lobby is a Christian store. If it were Catholic, they would have objected to all of the contraceptives and not just 4 of them (which I still think was random, by the way). My understanding is that they chose those 4 contraceptives because of the idea that they cause abortions. (which I still think is random because most forms of oral contraceptives alter the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation).

I also heard about the 401k investments, which I do find to be disturbing. I honestly have only seen that information reported by sites that have an obvious bias, and I'm curious to hear about it from a source that is more middle-of-the-road.

I'm just saying that this decision sets a precedent for other cases for Catholic business owners. There is already good news for EWTN (a Catholic television station).

I hope you are just as excited for a Muslim company to use this as precedence to screw over their employees.

You want to run your business as a religious enterprise? Run a religious charity? You want to make money completely unrelated to your religion., don't push your beliefs onto your employees.

holyguacamole79 · July 2014

jdluvr06 said:

I have a quick question because I'm feeling lazy and don't want to look it up. I thought that HL was still providing some types of BC but not others, like Plan B and IUDs?

Yep! Here's a good source I found - http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/06/30/morning-after-iuds/11768653/

NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Re: NWR: Hobby Lobby Case

Choose Another Board

Search Boards