Hobby Lobby
 

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/...-supreme-court

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfi...bby-arguments/

http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/seg...c90a465000062e

http://www.msnbc.com/andrea-mitchell...e-206208579522

Should for-profits/corporations have a "freedom of religion" that allows them to instill certain viewpoints on their employees (including but not limited to regulations under The Affordable Care Act)?

What say you, GC?


---
This thread isn't only about Hobby Lobby but this is the company that has been in the news over the past year. NPR had a wonderful discussion this afternoon. I can't find a link for today's NPR show but the main listener comments that struck were: (1) a man called asking if Hobby Lobby gets what they are requesting, can this be a slippery slope for other companies to do the same; and then for these companies to purchase other companies and basically lead to employees at various companies being subjected to such control; (2) a woman who is Catholic said she agrees with Hobby Lobby and when asked how she would feel if a company tried to impose their religious views on her as an employee she said "if I didn't like it, I would find another job" (:rolleyes: if only that was so easy for most employees)

No, I don't think companies should be able to do this. Can you imagine if Hobby Lobby's owners belonged to a non-Christian religion and were imposing their viewpoints on their employees? The townspeople would be sharpening the pitchforks and lighting the torches.

NO

in answer to your question: should corporations have "freedom of religion"?

OTOH - no one is being held hostage in that corporation. Vote with your feet. LEAVE.

I don't like HL b/c their fabric is crappy. That's my opinion. If I'm going to spend hours and hours and hours making a quilt, damn it, I'm going to spend $$$ on the fabric, thread, etc, so the damn thing is an heirloom. And yes I'm in a grumpy mood, not that anyone notices or cares.

What about a government that's able to force its views on its citizens? That sees more ominous than any employer doing that.

This is exactly how I feel about it. We have freedom to work wherever we are able to get a job (legally) right? So if you don't like it...don't work there.

I get where you're going with this (and I agree with the spirit of what you're saying), but we do have these things called "laws" that were put into place by our government...

You put AZTheta's two separate thoughts together and left out her "on the other hand," which indicates that she sees two different sides to the issue.

If you're going to quote someone, quote with accuracy.

1. I agree that people would be going crazy if nonChristians who run a company claimed freedom of religion in this regard.

2. The "leave" thing sounds entitled and as though it is coming from people who can leave a company so easily. As I said in the OP, not everyone can or should leave their employer so easily.

Thanks for your condescending comment. Today's newest polling data shows that 26% of Americans support the ACA. There have been plenty of laws in our country's past that were wrong, discriminatory, etc. Just because something is a law doesn't mean it isn't oppressive.

thank you. Nothing pisses me off quite like being misquoted, or having people put words in my mouth that I didn't say (or type).

The only thing that pisses me off more is the use of ellipses in place of correct punctuation or concise writing. There's one poster on GC who does it constantly. It's way worse than those smilies.

(waits for DrPhil to snipe at me, b/c I deserve it)

You missed the capital "T" in Thank you, dear ... :)

Exactly why religion deserves it's own protected niche not mixed in with secular life. Free to exercise, free from imposition, but not free to implement.

Oh, I'm sincerely sorry! I didn't mean to misquote or leave part out...was just stating/bolding/supporting how I felt about it?

Again, wasn't trying to be condescending...I don't fully support the ACA either. But I do try to support the government where possible.

And I wasn't fully quoted either (which was the part where I said I agreed with the spirit of what you said?), but nobody jumped on IP?

Both very fair points. In my mind, I was thinking more of a hourly employee that could probably walk across the street to Michaels and get a job fairly easily. It definitely is much deeper than that.

eek.... Sorry.... :o :)

I won't let you hijack this thread. LOL. :p

Hobby Lobby and Michaels employees tend to fit a certain demographic to typically match the customers. But, you're right it is more complex than that. The availability of good paying and long term employment varies based on a number of factors including demographics.

Allowing companies to do what Hobby Lobby is attempting to do places yet another restriction on the average American who doesn't have employment options and money saved for a rainy day. This would also disproportionately impact racial and ethnic minority women. These companies might as well put their socio-politico-religious ideologies on the job application and tell potential applicants that there will be restrictions. Of course, that would be discriminatory and EEOC worthy. Then again, as far as I'm concerned so is this---they are just using a different avenue to discriminate.

Which is feasible IF there is a Michaels in the area and IF Michaels is hiring for comparable wages and hours.

I completely agree, which is why I oppose all of the laws that try to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body or who two consenting adults are allowed to marry.


This varies greatly by the poll, apparently. The one released by the Kaiser Foundation survey said this (posted in the last 10 hours):

Almost half of those surveyed (49%) said they wanted Congress to "keep the law in place and work to improve it." Another 10% said Congress should simply leave the law as is.
By contrast, about 3 in 10 either wanted the law repealed outright (18%) or repealed and replaced with a Republican alternative (11%).

Major provisions of the law are quite popular, including subsidies to help people buy insurance, expansion of Medicaid, the guarantee that people can’t be denied coverage because of pre-existing medical problems and the rule eliminating out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, Kaiser found. But 40% to 50% of Americans do not know that the law includes each of those provisions.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politi...#ixzz2xIZjz5Xq


I do not think companies should be able to impose their beliefs on their employees. I took the "Leave" comment to mean as a consumer or stock holder and I have chosen that route with Hobby Lobby. I will never step foot in that store. A brand new one opened here in the past few years and I simply will not shop there.

The easy answer to all of it is to take health insurance out of the hands of the employer. Easy peasy. Employers can give employees vouchers for the equivalent of what they spend and employees can go to the exchange and buy what they need- not what their employer wants to pay for. It is absolutely ludicrous that your employer gets to choose what kind of health insurance you can get. If you want an HMO, you should be able to get the one you want. If you want a PPO, you should be able to get a PPO. If you want a high deductible plan with an HSA, then you should be able to get that. Why in the world should your employer determine what you get to have? It's absurd.

OK. Thanks for pulling down my pants. Oh, and welcome back. Where the hell you been? :p

It's not that easy. I am a medical professional who worked for a for profit hospital from many years. A Catholic hospital purchased us and has taken our reproductive freedom away from us. Yes, we could go look for a new employer but it's not that easy in a smaller town and forfeiting years of service, etc.

This is one of a number of moves Hobby Lobby has made that I consider to be asinine. They lost my business when they refused to stock Hanukkah items.

Let their workers vote with their feet. I'll vote with my wallet.

A worker shouldn't HAVE to vote with her feet. If they employ people in the US they should follow the rules of the land. And the rule of the land is you can't cram your religious viewpoint down the throat of your employees. I think (hope, pray) that the supreme court learned their lesson with Corporations are People and will vote the correct way on this one, which will be cause to re-address Citizens United and make that asinine ruling go away. And, by the way, why doesn't asinine have 2 s'es.

But back to my initial thought, while the workers shouldn't have to vote with her feet, the consumer certainly can. I haven't bought fabric in a dog's age, but I will definitely keep this in mind when in need of craft items of any sort. You can't get on your soap box over every friggin issue that comes up, but when a corporation takes their political viewpoint all the way to the top, yes, that is a good time to vote with my wallet.

I mistakenly spelled it that way first, but I got spell checked. And I agree, the people working at Hobby Lobby probably don't have tons of options, and shouldn't have to suck it up because their employer wants to make a statement.

Amen

This is the situation I was thinking of where the employer denying insurance paying for BC (NOT denying BC, as many people are incorrectly saying) would be truly disastrous and unfair. Let's be honest, if your ass has been working at Hobby Lobby for 25 years, you probably are past the point in life where you need birth control.

Yeah they can't deny BC (I assume they couldn't even if they wanted to). They are making sure BC remains the financial responsibility of employees.

Except for medical conditions that require you to take BC, or it you have a dependent who wants to take BC maybe for a medical condition.

I think GDI makes a valid point in two ways. For the older worker, the precedent of denying a form of coverage could lead to denial of other coverages on the premise of violating religious convictions. But more to GDI's point, the younger workers who are in the process of earning those years of service face the dilemma of losing those years or of not having other employment options (small town) so as to be able to vote with their feet. Personally, I sense a bit of misogyny in some of these claims of violations of religious principles.

The government has made a determination that it is good for society for birth control to be available with zero co-pay. This is a rare government action that is actually based on empirical evidence -- people use birth control more reliably, and use more effective forms, when this policy is in place. A corporation shouldn't be able to undermine that policy where its employees are concerned.

I agree that getting rid of employer involvement in health care altogether is the best policy, but that wasn't politically feasible.

Hobby Lobby sets more people off on this topic than any other. I was watching this thread and few others on another message board I frequent that were about this same topic. It is interesting to see how many people comment on it. I'm not sure if it is because people really care about the issue or if Hobby Lobby has a big following. Weren't there other companies involved with the lawsuit?

Conastoga Wood. Not many woman frequent their stores ;)

To be clear, birth control is very closely tied to (white) women's liberation. An attack on birth control is an attack on women in the workplace and gender equality more broadly.

It's pretty troubling that Hobby Lobby getting a lot of political sympathy in part because they're framing the disputed medications as abortifacients instead of contraceptives. OBGYNs say that they aren't abortifacients, but Hobby Lobby says that they can decide biochemical questions according to their religious faith. According to their argument, if an employer decided that ibuprofen is an abortifacient, motivated by sincerely held religious belief, then they can refuse to cover it.

I cannot wait for the case where an employer says they'll only cover maternity care for married women. It's coming.

We have a pretty good idea of how some of the Jsutices will rule. Kennedy is often a swing vote, but I think he will be with Scalia/Thomas. I don't hold much hope for Aiito. Roberts is the Justice to watch.

I'm really interested in the turnout, though I am a bit worried as well. I think it's very dangerous to give corporations the right to exercise religious freedom. For one thing, who's beliefs are being applied? It allows potentially one person to discriminate against who knows how people, because the person with more money obviously has a greater interest in freedom of religion then those without.

Well, there is a big movement of white Christians that want to see white women stop using birth control to stop the "take over" of America by those "Non-Americans". There are many arguments against birth control and they aren't all just religious. Religion is a nice way to package all of them so you can hide behind the 1st amendment. These same people feel the role of women is in the home as mothers and wives so aren't swayed by any arguments to the contrary. It feels like 1900 sometimes.

Psi U -- you nailed a core question: Whose beliefs should be determinative? There is a strong argument that it should be the individuals. The slippery slope can be even more frightening. Will a religiously affiliated hospital be able to refuse to follow a health care directive against heroic measures on religious gounds (tabling for the moment, recent decisions based on state law)? In medical emergencies one doesn't always have the luxury of choose one's hospital.

This already happens.

: (

Yeah- this seems to be the crux of the case. Hobby Lobby isn't refusing to pay for all BC, they're refusing to pay for some BC based on an extreme minority opinion. They only want to not cover birth control that prevents implantation (IUDs and morning after pills).

It's an interesting spin to the now-classic "religion prevents my acceptance of BC" argument.

So now this case becomes part religious freedom, part science, part religion-vs-science.

Except morning after pills also prevent ovulation, not just implantation.