At issue here is not only HL but the implications of such a policy and the facts that there are scores of people who are just happy to find employment because they do need to bay bills.
Let me ask yo this: Do yo believe that if by some turn of fate the roof collapsed in a HL store and some people died or were seriously injured, would the owners sell all their personal belongings to compensate the victims and their families or they would take the benefit of personal separation, the corporation afforded them?
They are not selling the insurance coverage.
They are seeking an exemption based on religious grounds where none exist.
They were already covering the very same things in their insurance.
Now they are attempting to deny their employees something that a law mandates to cover.
No, it is every employers responsibility to comply with laws. It is as simple as that.So it's every employer's responsibility to cater to the bottom-feeders in the employment pool who are "just happy to find a job".
You guess wrong just like your belief that irrelevant partisan tripe somehow amounts to intelligent reasoning.Slackers of the world, unite! I guess.
Me too.I'm being flippant, of course.
No they do not. People have religion not corporations.religious grounds do exist-- they have a religious objection to it.
In a free country, people should be allowed to live their lives as they see fit.
Including in business.
Should a Jewish deli store owner be compelled to sell non-Kosher food? Should a Moslem store owner be compelled to sell liquor?
there's something else people seem to be turning upside down and that is the fact that the ACA mandates to insurance companies the minimum requirements for any policy sold.... not what specific coverage employers must provide. Basically this whole situation can be avoided by the SC ruling in favor of HL but not allowing insurance companies to sell policies that don't meet the minimum requirements. In other words HL would have every right to go out and shop for a policy that essentially won't exist thus throwing them into the position of either just providing the care they object to or not providing insurance and pay the mandated fine.They are not selling the insurance coverage.
They are seeking an exemption based on religious grounds where none exist.
They were already covering the very same things in their insurance.
Now they are attempting to deny their employees something that a law mandates to cover.
Nor should the first person's lack of religion ever govern someone else's life.
Right?
No they do not. People have religion not corporations.
If such is the law of the land in the nation where they live, YES.
Now that your head has finished exploding, remember that it is neither Jewish nor Muslim (or any other significant religion's) belief that one is required to start a business. Since such is not part of their religion, then they are making a SECULAR CHOICE...and secular choices fall under the purview not of religion, but of the laws of the nation in which they live.
Now, do you hold yourself to be 'Christian'? If so, remember that Jesus never, ever implied that one should even resist the laws of the nation. In fact, He said quite the opposite: "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, and unto God that which is God's". Not only that, but when Peter tried to fight for Him when He was being arrested by the Romans, what did Jesus do? He told Peter to put down his sword, and He submitted to government authority as an innocent Man...even unto His death.
But what do you do if your beliefs fly in the face of national law? Got an answer for that one, too. I am a strong Christian, and I belong to the Church of Christ - in Tagalog, "Iglesia ni Cristo". We have many locales in Muslim countries where such are either strictly forbidden or restricted to certain areas (just as Jews were once relegated to ghettos, originally by the Catholic church). If the Muslims find our chapels - which are hidden and outside those restricted areas (I've been to one more than once) - then those who are there will be arrested and the property confiscated and possibly razed. But we would submit to that arrest, because that's just what Jesus did.
And that's the great error of mainstream "Christianity" in America - they want to fight the government, force it to their own beliefs...but that's not what Jesus wanted by His word or His example.
Religious freedom is correctly limited to behavior that does not harm others. That is why the courts have allowed some religions to use peyote but no religion is allowed to do human sacrifices. Even parental rights are limited, with parents prosecuted for failing to give their children medical treatment despite claims of a religious belief that medicine should not be used. Allowing a business to limit the health coverage their employees receive for religious reasons is not acceptable because it does harm to the employes. If the employees were involved with religious duties, ie. monks, priests, ministers, nuns etc., then adhering to the religious beliefs is essential to their jobs and it would be acceptable to require them to follow the religion's rules. For other types of employees, the owners should not have a right to control their off-work behavior or access to health care.
Good for them, I am sure they will include that in their prayers, but the corporations must comply with the law.The owners have religious objections
HL has to comply with a law, the owners are free to pray as they please.That is what Hobby Lobby is asking for-- that their rights under the law of the nation which guarantees their free exercise of religion, is respected.
HL is a corporation and as such has no religion.Nobody is controlling somebody else's "off-work behavior." Nor is "access to health care" being denied.
What is occurring is that Hobby Lobby is being told they cannot freely "exercise" their religion.
HL is a corporation and as such has no religion.
HL has to comply with a law, the owners are free to pray as they please.
Yes it is that is why the owners are free to pray as they please and the corporation has to comply with the laws as it is a separate entity."free exercise of religion" is law as well.
Yes to the extent that the corporation complies with applicable laws.The owners do and have been clear they have run their business according to their religious values.
Yes it is that is why the owners are free to pray as they please and the corporation has to comply with the laws as it is a separate entity.
1. Hobby Lobby should in good conscience grandfather existing employees and their families in their insurance coverage. That is the right thing to do. Following that the - after a specific date - they should be free to deny insurance coverage (day after meds, as I understand it) to future employees and the conditions should be stated clearly in the employee contract i.e. if you are raped we won't pay a penny to provide insurance coverage for day after meds. If you want to work for them sign the contract and live with it.
2. Businesses that don't support behaviors on the basis of religion should man up and post it on their web sites and public portals. Examples, "We abhor pre-marital sex, mixed marriages, post marital sex, same sex marriages, birth control, bastard children, people involved in marital affairs and unmarried people living together, masturbation and recreational sex." Let patrons decide where they want to spend their money. That's fair. No one is duped.
WTF is that supposed to mean?Nor should the first person's lack of religion ever govern someone else's life.
Right?
Bullshat distinction. Some contraceptives do not prevent fertilization of the egg and only prevent implantation of the zygote... Just as the mourning after pill does.Hobby Lobby have made no comment about employees behavior. They also apparently have always covered contraceptives. They object however to covering the "morning after pill" as they believe it complicit with abortion.
Bullshat distinction. Some contraceptives do not prevent fertilization of the egg and only prevent implantation of the zygote... Just as the mourning after pill does.
The distinction of "after the act" has nothing to do with the science of pregnancy prevention.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?