Hobby Lobby Case: About Labor Rights

[Texashiker]

While I do not agree with most of what the author posted, I do however agree with certain parts of the article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...ts-and-religious-extremism-not-birth-control/

With the supreme court opening up campaign donations from businesses as a right, what could the hobby lobby case open up?

“If an employer didn’t want to provide healthcare for a same-sex spouse, they could claim religious freedom,” Berner said, noting that Justice Sonia Sotomayor shared her concerns about possible religious objections to vaccines in court.

“Corporations, like individuals, could claim any law violates their freedom of expression,” she said. “There are religions that oppose unionization, like Seventh Day Adventists.”

If Hobby Lobby wins, this could undo decades of progress in civil rights. If businesses are granted religious rights, this could open up the flood gates for discrimination.

Besides all of that, the author is kinda cute.

 

[mrjminer]

Well, you could look at it as undoing decades of progress in civil rights, or you could look at it as giving people the freedom they unfairly lost through decades of progress in civil rights.

Sure, some religions oppose unionization, but other religions oppose working for specific times in the day to face a direction and pray. I don't think an employer should have to deal with either if they so choose. Business is business.

I think for an employer to do something on the grounds of religion (if they make changes) that conflicts with an existing law, the "business religion law" would probably have to force them to declare a recognized (ie: xxxxxx number of followers or greater) religion / set of rules that would be associated with their business. Another checkbox for the business license form.

 

[Thebobo]

Texas Hiker stress check list

Can I do anything about the Hobby Lobby Case?

YES - then do it.
NO - then don't stress about it.

This one is a NO for you, now get to Netflix and go check out Stress, Portrait of a Killer - Full Documentary , or click here for utube version.

 

[Bird222]

While I do not agree with most of what the author posted, I do however agree with certain parts of the article.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoc...ts-and-religious-extremism-not-birth-control/

With the supreme court opening up campaign donations from businesses as a right, what could the hobby lobby case open up?


If Hobby Lobby wins, this could undo decades of progress in civil rights. If businesses are granted religious rights, this could open up the flood gates for discrimination.

Besides all of that, the author is kinda cute.

Shhh. Someone might say you're fear mongering.

 

[werepossum]

I've mixed feelings about this. I very much disagree with the federal government mandating that birth control must be free. I very much agree that religious institutions and organizations should not be forced to provide a service that goes against their religion. However, allowing an employer to not provide that service based on his own personal religious views seems to me a bridge too far. How is that materially different from saying that an employer must excuse employes from their duties if those duties violate their own religious views?

I don't think it's opening up discrimination, as the employer would still have to comply with other laws against discrimination. It could however possibly give an employer a slight competitive edge.

 

[cyclohexane]

I thought Jesus said that "only God can judge"?

Who gives Texashiker and the owners of hobby lobby the right to judge their employee's healthcare decisions? Is Texashiker god? I'm confused o.0...

 

[Texashiker]

I thought Jesus said that "only God can judge"?

Who gives Texashiker and the owners of hobby lobby the right to judge their employee's healthcare decisions? Is Texashiker god? I'm confused o.0...

And your employer can tell you if you want to live an immoral lifestyle to go somewhere else.

 

[piasabird]

Hobby Lobby was paying for 23 different kinds of birth control. They just objected to a few types of birth control because they were considered a form of abortion. This is just the court not wanting to be reasonable.

 

[BUnit1701]

...

Besides all of that, the author is kinda cute.

Holy hell, emphasis on the 'kinda'.

 

[Texashiker]

Holy hell, emphasis on the 'kinda'.

What do you mean "emphasis on the 'kinda'"?

She is hot.

 

[cyclohexane]

And your employer can tell you if you want to live an immoral lifestyle to go somewhere else.

using contraception is an immoral lifestyle? What the fuck? I guess the 100 million women in the USA must be all immoral then.

 

[CitizenKain]

Watch corporations in the US become instant christian scientists and deny all health insurance.

 

[Texashiker]

using contraception is an immoral lifestyle? What the fuck? I guess the 100 million women in the USA must be all immoral then.

You are taking my post out of context.

If I understand this hobby lobby suit is it mainly about plan b type of pills.

 

[senseamp]

The stupidity emanating from the Republican appointees on the Roberts Court is palpable and spreading through our legal system.

 

[kia75]

Hobby Lobby was paying for 23 different kinds of birth control. They just objected to a few types of birth control because they were considered a form of abortion. This is just the court not wanting to be reasonable.

Hobby Lobby didn't object to these types of birth control for over a decade. The company has literally been providing health insurance that offers those types of birth control for over a decade. When various states required Health Insurance to cover these forms of Birth control there wasn't a peep from Hobby Lobby, yet when the federal government required these forms of birth control to be covered it literally becomes a federal case.

The funny thing is that no medical doctors consider these types of birth control "abortifacients" which is the reason Hobby Lobby claims they don't want to provide the birth control. Using these forms of birth control doesn't cause abortions. On the other hand if you are employed at Hobbly Lobby and want to profit from abortions, Hobby Lobby will fully support you. Their 501k plan includes many companies that create the drugs used to actually induce abortions in women.

Hmm, providing birth control isn't against their morals because it might cause abortions (but doesn't really) while making money on drugs whose soul purpose are abortions is perfectly fine, Hobby Lobby will even pay you to invest in them?

Does this seem strange to anyone? The funny thing is that unlike health Insurance (which for the most part mandates what birth control is required), someone at Hobby Lobby had to pick and choose the companies for the 501k. Someone at Hobby Lobby though it was fine for Hobby Lobby to purchase stocks on their employee's behalf for abortion companies.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
Their investment in those pharma companies should lead to an immediate dismissal. Hell, they should be fined for the outright fraudulent basis of the lawsuit. Someone may have legitimate standing to pursue this case but it's obviously not Hobby Lobby who clearly don't let their religious convictions get in the way when it suits them.

 

[werepossum]

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...rgency-contraception-and-abortion-drug-makers
Their investment in those pharma companies should lead to an immediate dismissal. Hell, they should be fined for the outright fraudulent basis of the lawsuit. Someone may have legitimate standing to pursue this case but it's obviously not Hobby Lobby who clearly don't let their religious convictions get in the way when it suits them.

Yeah, I prefer to get all my politic facts from Mother Jones' hard-hitting and totally unbiased reportage. After all, who is more politically informed than hippie stoners?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Yeah, I prefer to get all my politic facts from Mother Jones' hard-hitting and totally unbiased reportage. After all, who is more politically informed than hippie stoners?

Ok, let's not actually read the article, let's just snark about 'hippies'.

Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

 

[werepossum]

Ok, let's not actually read the article, let's just snark about 'hippies'.

Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/

LOL You got me, a leftie writing in Forbes about the Mother Jones article is completely different.

It's an odd sort of hypocrisy. Basically the left is arguing that if Hobby Lobby does not prevent its employees from investing in funds holding stocks of companies making these products, within their own retirement accounts, then Hobby Lobby has no moral standing arguing that it should not be forced provide those products. Note that would require eliminating the vast majority of mutual funds, probably leaving only specialized funds and social conservative funds - probably not big producers. Do you really want to be in the position of arguing that Hobby Lobby has an obligation to be draconian in managing its employees' own retirement accounts' access to funds in order to retain any moral principles of its own? How would Hobby Lobby enforcing its principles on its employees' investment of their own money (admittedly with a matching portion, but mostly the employees' money) be a good thing?

I'm not on Hobby Lobby's side here, but that's sauce through which one could read newspapers at night.

 

[Bird222]

LOL You got me, a leftie writing in Forbes about the Mother Jones article is completely different.

It's an odd sort of hypocrisy. Basically the left is arguing that if Hobby Lobby does not prevent its employees from investing in funds holding stocks of companies making these products, within their own retirement accounts, then Hobby Lobby has no moral standing arguing that it should not be forced provide those products. Note that would require eliminating the vast majority of mutual funds, probably leaving only specialized funds and social conservative funds - probably not big producers. Do you really want to be in the position of arguing that Hobby Lobby has an obligation to be draconian in managing its employees' own retirement accounts' access to funds in order to retain any moral principles of its own? How would Hobby Lobby enforcing its principles on its employees' investment of their own money (admittedly with a matching portion, but mostly the employees' money) be a good thing?

I'm not on Hobby Lobby's side here, but that's sauce through which one could read newspapers at night.

This just further illustrates how stupid this is. Whatever the beliefs are of the HL owners are, they need to follow them and leave everybody else alone.

 

[kia75]

LOL You got me, a leftie writing in Forbes about the Mother Jones article is completely different.

It's an odd sort of hypocrisy. Basically the left is arguing that if Hobby Lobby does not prevent its employees from investing in funds holding stocks of companies making these products, within their own retirement accounts, then Hobby Lobby has no moral standing arguing that it should not be forced provide those products.

It's an odd sort of hypocrisy. Basically Hobbly Lobbes is arguing if Hobby Lobby does not prevent it's employees from using their own health care as they wish then Hobby Lobby has no moral standing arguing it should not be forced to provide those products.

Note that would require eliminating the vast majority of mutual funds, probably leaving only specialized funds and social conservative funds - probably not big producers. Do you really want to be in the position of arguing that Hobby Lobby has an obligation to be draconian in managing its employees' own retirement accounts' access to funds in order to retain any moral principles of its own? How would Hobby Lobby enforcing its principles on its employees' investment of their own money (admittedly with a matching portion, but mostly the employees' money) be a good thing?

Note that would require eliminating the vast majority of healthcare insurance, probably only the specialty plans for Catholics would remain. That means No Birth Control what-so-ever. Do you really want to be in the position of arguing that Hobby Lobby has an obligation to morally decide the health care of their employees? How would Hobby Lobby enforcing it's principles on it's employees own health care ( admittedly, Hobby Lobby pays a portion, but mostly the employe's money) be a good thing?

The funny thing is that there are plenty of 401k investment vehicles that Hobby Lobby could provide that don't include profiting from abortions. Hobby Lobby instead specifically chooses to provide investment vehicles that do. That really isn't true of Health Insurance. There are for the most part the state-regulated insurance policies that provide for birth control, and the Catholic insurance policies that don't. Hobby Lobby is basically asking for a brand new sort of insurance policy that applies only to itself. And it's doing this despite being perfectly fine with those insurance policies for over the past decade.

I'm not on Hobby Lobby's side here, but that's sauce through which one could read newspapers at night.

As you just expertly pointed out (thank you for that, btw) Hobby Lobby's position is laughably bad. No one is pointing out that Hobby Lobby should be morally responsible for what they invest their 401k in because that's as ridiculous as saying Hobby Lobby should be morally responsible for how their employees treat their health care. Much like Hobby Lobby can't say how I choose to spend my money (Home and food, hookers and blow, it's my choice) Hobby Lobby can't say how I invest my money or utilize my health care.

To a certain extent Hobby Lobby agrees with all of us that what employees do with their own perks is there business. It has yet to pull the investment plans it's offering that profit from abortions.

 

[Pens1566]

Yeah, the investment thing coming out kind of does call their motives into question. Not good optics.

 

[Jaskalas]

Insurance... and birth control. Am I missing what one has to do with the other? Why don't we have to buy food insurance to pay for daily meals? Maybe because you're always going to be using it and there's no economic model where it makes sense.

Insurance for a daily consumable is quite the bureaucratic contrivance. That's the first mistake.

I very much disagree with the federal government mandating that birth control must be free.

Birth control is not free. The end user may not clearly see a price tag, but everyone is still paying for it. Tact it onto insurance and the price of insurance is higher. You or your employer pay more for insurance. Your wages make up the difference. Or maybe we raise the price of the products employers sell, and you buy.

You're still paying for it, it's just the payment structure is twisted and convoluted. A bureaucratic nightmare with hidden costs and many hands in the cookie jar, that's the second mistake.

Your employer should have NO RELATION to your birth control. OR your health care. Make that the damn law and CUT the bureaucracy!

 

[simpletron]

Yeah, the investment thing coming out kind of does call their motives into question. Not good optics.

Not really. When motherjones listed mutual funds that contain large companies, held in many funds, who primary revenue isn't birth control drugs.

The companies that motherjones is listing are the following:
Pfizer - a DOW 30, S&P 500 company
Forest laboratories - S&P 500 company
Aetna - S&P 500 company
Humana - S&P 500 company
AstraZeneca - the tenth largest company on the london exchange
Teva Pharmaceutical - top 15 pharmaceutical company in the world
Bayer - have you heard of aspirin?

Since for most mutual funds, these company would at most make up single digit percentage and then birth control relate items don't move the needle at all for any of these companies. You're looking at something like 0.0001 of the 401K supports birth control drugs.

 

[smackababy]

Not really. When motherjones listed mutual funds that contain large companies, held in many funds, who primary revenue isn't birth control drugs.

The companies that motherjones is listing are the following:
Pfizer - a DOW 30, S&P 500 company
Forest laboratories - S&P 500 company
Aetna - S&P 500 company
Humana - S&P 500 company
AstraZeneca - the tenth largest company on the london exchange
Teva Pharmaceutical - top 15 pharmaceutical company in the world
Bayer - have you heard of aspirin?

Since for most mutual funds, these company would at most make up single digit percentage and then birth control relate items don't move the needle at all for any of these companies. You're looking at something like 0.0001 of the 401K supports birth control drugs.

And how many Hobby Lobby employees use their insurance to obtain the "objectional" drugs. And, if the point is, if you are going to take a stance on moral objections to something, you had better be taking that stance everywhere.