Hobby Lobby or How I Chose God Over Country

[guido911]

Another company gets an injunction:

A second business owner in the state of Missouri has won its battle against the Obama HHS mandate as a federal court granted it a reprieve from the Obama Administration's contraceptive and abortion drug mandate.

The U.S. District Court for Western Missouri issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement of the law against American Pulverizer Company of St. Louis. The firm is owned by Paul and Henry Griesedieck and members of the family are pro-life Christians who don't want to be forced to pay for drugs for their employees that may cause abortions.

In their lawsuit, the Griesediecks contend that compliance with the Obamacare mandate would force them to violate their religious and moral beliefs.  In their lawsuit, the Griesediecks state that "it would be sinful for us to pay for services that have a significant risk of causing the death of embryonic lives."

http://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/02/missouri-company-wins-its-battle-against-obama-hhs-mandate/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+lifenews%2Fnewsfeed+%28LifeNews.com%29

[Gaspar]

Domino's owner gets an injunction.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/legal-challenges/275015-judge-halts-birth-control-policy-for-dominos-founder

Tom Monaghan was holding his mouth just right.

[guido911]

Now it's Taco Bell in Guthrie...

http://guthrienewspage.wordpress.com/2013/01/07/report-guthrie-taco-bell-hours-cut-due-to-healthcare-mandates/

[Ed W]

So religious freedom means that these employers are free to impose their personal religious beliefs on their employees?  I seem to recall that churches cannot do that to employees in a secular business - a bookstore, for instance - that's run by a church. 

[Red Arrow]

So religious freedom means that these employers are free to impose their personal religious beliefs on their employees?  I seem to recall that churches cannot do that to employees in a secular business - a bookstore, for instance - that's run by a church. 

You could also look at it as the employees getting to impose their personal religious (or lack of) beliefs on the employer.

[Ed W]

You could also look at it as the employees getting to impose their personal religious (or lack of) beliefs on the employer.

No, Red, it's not the same.  An employer has certain expectations regarding the conduct of his employees, but that does not include the ability to control their reproductive health.  I know women who use birth control pills to regulate their cycles in an effort to control pain.  I also know women (or did at an earlier part of my life) who used birth control pills as a normal part of their sex lives.  Yet these employers make no distinction between the two and simply deny them for all women.

I have to wonder if they're also against the use of drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Would it be equally right for an employer to demand that his male employees wear yamulkes, or that none of them wear the color yellow, or own a dog?  Would we regard that as unreasonable?

I'd expect there would be a public outcry if an employer insisted that prayer alone would be sufficient health care for his employees, or that those who fell sick deserved to do so due to their sinful natures.  Make no mistake about it - some of these companies take their positions because they believe that sex is sinful and that anyone engaging in it outside of marriage deserves some kind of punishment.   

[Red Arrow]

No, Red, it's not the same.  An employer has certain expectations regarding the conduct of his employees, but that does not include the ability to control their reproductive health.

I am not allowed to drink alcoholic beverages at work or during working hours.  My employer does not prohibit me from drinking alcoholic beverages when away from work.  I do not expect my employer to pay for my beer directly. 

Hobby Lobby is willing to and already does pay for many types of contraception according to the links posted here that I have read.  I have seen nothing prohibiting employees from using the day after pill.  Hobby Lobby just doesn't want to pay for it.

[guido911]

No, Red, it's not the same.  An employer has certain expectations regarding the conduct of his employees, but that does not include the ability to control their reproductive health.  I know women who use birth control pills to regulate their cycles in an effort to control pain.  I also know women (or did at an earlier part of my life) who used birth control pills as a normal part of their sex lives.  Yet these employers make no distinction between the two and simply deny them for all women.

I have to wonder if they're also against the use of drugs for erectile dysfunction.

Would it be equally right for an employer to demand that his male employees wear yamulkes, or that none of them wear the color yellow, or own a dog?  Would we regard that as unreasonable?

I'd expect there would be a public outcry if an employer insisted that prayer alone would be sufficient health care for his employees, or that those who fell sick deserved to do so due to their sinful natures.  Make no mistake about it - some of these companies take their positions because they believe that sex is sinful and that anyone engaging in it outside of marriage deserves some kind of punishment.   

I think the Taco Bell stuff has more to do with the costs.

As for ED drugs, I would guess if using those would terminate a life, er.. pregnancy, then these companies might object. And btw, do you know how despicable  calling the termination of unborn babies "reproductive health" actually is? Call it what it is, not something else because it is more palatable.

I see this "controversy" to be no different than the pharmacist or doctor that refuses to provide a good or service they disagree with on conscience/moral grounds. A person should not have to surrender those beliefs merely by entering the marketplace.

[Ed W]

The decision to refuse to pay for a morning after pill is based on religion, not a secular reason.  If Hobby Lobby was a church, that decision would be acceptable.  But Hobby Lobby is not a church but a business, and businesses have to adhere to the law without choosing which laws they find acceptable.  I think it's fine that they've opted to challenge the Affordable Care Act in court, but ultimately they're going to lose.

[guido911]

I have seen nothing prohibiting employees from using the day after pill.  Hobby Lobby just doesn't want to pay for it.

But you see, it's not enough that people have access to these drugs, which HL owners might detest, those that detest them on religious grounds must also now provide for them. Where in the hell does the government derive its power to do that?

[guido911]

The decision to refuse to pay for a morning after pill is based on religion, not a secular reason.  If Hobby Lobby was a church, that decision would be acceptable.  

And there's your equal protection argument...

[Red Arrow]

The decision to refuse to pay for a morning after pill is based on religion, not a secular reason.  

So I need to look for an employer that refuses to pay for my beer for religious reasons rather than secular reasons.  Then I can get the Federal Government to make them pay for my beer.  Sounds like a plan to me.

[Ed W]

So I need to look for an employer that refuses to pay for my beer for religious reasons rather than secular reasons.  Then I can get the Federal Government to make them pay for my beer.  Sounds like a plan to me.

I'm beginning to think you're just in this for the beer.  I'll have to buy you one sometime.

[Red Arrow]

I'm beginning to think you're just in this for the beer.  I'll have to buy you one sometime.

It will take more than one and I'll still disagree with you when I sober up.

[Red Arrow]

I'm beginning to think you're just in this for the beer.  I'll have to buy you one sometime.

I've changed my mind about the beer.  Buy me some AvGas instead.  I'll be sure to have the tanks down to minimum landing reserves.