Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Will Company's Owned By Jehovahs Witnesses Have To Include Blood Transfusions In EBP's? (Hobby Lobby
7/10/2014 | Laissez-Faire Capitalist

Posted on 07/10/2014 3:58:44 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist

Will they have to cover something like this under the Employee Benefit Program if that employee wasn't a JW, or could they say that they now have a religious exemption, too?

I wonder what other can of worms the recent SCOTUS ruling will open up...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat
KEYWORDS: abortion; contraception; hobbylobby; jehovahswitnesses; moralabsolutes; prolife; scotus
Please tell me that Hobby Lobby has had nothing whatsoever to do with Bill Gothard. I have shopped at HL more than once, but if they gave him either directly or indirectly one $, that's it - I being pro-life to the core nonewithstanding.
1 posted on 07/10/2014 3:58:44 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; All

All comments welcome.

But please be civil in them/with them, as when posting here at FR it clearly says “no personal attacks” against anyone.


2 posted on 07/10/2014 4:00:32 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Transfusions are medical necessity. Abortifacients, like all bc, is elective.


3 posted on 07/10/2014 4:06:08 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Well, no. Their religion makes them reject blood transfusions (if I understand it correctly). It doesn’t mean that they think you can’t or shouldn’t have a blood transfusion yourself.


4 posted on 07/10/2014 4:07:03 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

what company is owned by Jehovah Witnesses anyway?


5 posted on 07/10/2014 4:07:29 PM PDT by porter_knorr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

so what is the premise? That a company is owned by someone whose religion does not allow blood transfusions. Therefore that company would want health care companies to offer plans that do NOT cover blood transfusions? (which save lives instead of taking lives like abortion drugs) so the employees would have health care but the coverage would not cover transfusions?

seems a stretch. doubt the SC would bite on such a case


6 posted on 07/10/2014 4:09:27 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: x

That wouldn’t prevent you from having a blood transfusion, they would just refuse to pay for it under their health insurance plan.


7 posted on 07/10/2014 4:10:54 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ray76
The company owned by JW’s could say that the person can pay out of pocket, or that the gov’t can pay for it, as they have religious grounds against paying for the blood transfusion. Thus, the medical necessity would be taken care of, without overriding their religious views.
8 posted on 07/10/2014 4:13:01 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: x

I was talking about someone who wasn’t;t a JW, worked for a company owned by JW’s, and the company did not want to pay for any blood transfusions, and did not want them covered under company EBP’s. They could say that while it is a medical necessity, the person can pay for it out of pocket or the gov’t can pay the tab, and thus the medical necessity would be taken care of, and religious liberty protected simultaneously.


9 posted on 07/10/2014 4:16:03 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Infertility treatments could also be objected to.


10 posted on 07/10/2014 4:17:40 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
If the company said that the person can pay for it out of pocket (or the gov’t can cover the tab), then the medical necessity would be dealt with then and there, while religious liberty was simultaneously protected.

I can't see a way that SCOTUS could say no to this and yes to Hobby Lobby. It would parallel the Hobby Lobby ruling.

11 posted on 07/10/2014 4:18:30 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz

Correct.


12 posted on 07/10/2014 4:19:26 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

your blood transfusion seldom kills another person...the birth control items they objected to kill an innocent third party


13 posted on 07/10/2014 4:20:21 PM PDT by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Nope. Blood transfusion is emergency treatment.

Abortifacients are prophylactic.


14 posted on 07/10/2014 4:20:32 PM PDT by struggle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
That wouldn’t prevent you from having a blood transfusion, they would just refuse to pay for it under their health insurance plan.

Would they, though? I don't think they believe that having a blood transfusion is in the same category as having an abortion is for the Hobby Lobby people or that the same issues are concerned. They don't regard it, for example, as the taking of a human life, but just as something they are forbidden from doing, as people in some religions don't drink or eat pork or beef. I'd have to find out more about the matter, though.

15 posted on 07/10/2014 4:22:08 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

The Hobby Lobby ruling made no mention of whether or not birth control kills a human being, only that the personal beliefs of the owners of a closely held company were enough to deny insurance coverage for those prescriptions.


16 posted on 07/10/2014 4:25:08 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: x

My reply in post 16 applies to your comment as well.


17 posted on 07/10/2014 4:29:41 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

These are all problems of communism.


18 posted on 07/10/2014 4:30:31 PM PDT by Ray76 (True change requires true change - A Second Party ...or else it's more of the same...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

They will be required to get blood transfusions with faggot blood... if 5hey need it or not.


19 posted on 07/10/2014 4:30:34 PM PDT by Rodamala
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
I'd like to think management would recognize that having a blood transfusion isn't in the same category as taking a human life -- that it might be something they wouldn't do, but not something that is morally repugnant across the board -- but if people feel strongly enough about something who can say?

We have a live and let live policy about alcohol, pork, beef and other things that some religions regard as forbidden. Some countries don't, though. What's barred to them has to be barred to everyone else.

As things stand here and now, I'd expect Jehovah's Witnesses (a very small part of the population) would recognize that not everybody felt as they did about blood transfusions (apparently, not all Jehovah's Witnesses think alike on the matter, either).

Christian Scientists, for example, may not believe in many medical treatments, but Hobby Lobby doesn't mean that a company owned by Christian Scientists is exempt from the law. Most Christian Scientists (I think) recognize that the rules they apply to themselves aren't going to be accepted by the wider population as valid.

If I'm not mistaken I think what you're saying is basically the upshot of Hobby Lobby. The individual or government picks up the tab in the end, so it doesn't matter (though blood transfusions may be a lot more expensive than morning after pills, though). People who are intent on opposing the ruling will oppose and distort it whatever it actually says.

Trying to come up with ever more obscure religious groups and taboos, though, is a good way for them to attack the decision, so maybe it's not the right thing for us to do right now.

20 posted on 07/10/2014 4:36:43 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

I have no problem with that.. health insurance as part of my work compensation...and its just that .... work compensation.. if you don’t like the compensation for your go work somewhere else


21 posted on 07/10/2014 5:03:27 PM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: struggle

One might die without a blood transfusion but will not die not using birth control. But the Birth control can kill a person. Thirdly, yes, why can’t people understand they can pay for it themselves.


22 posted on 07/10/2014 6:01:40 PM PDT by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; Fuzz; tophat9000; x; Rodamala; Ray76; struggle; terycarl; plain talk; ...
Laissez-faire capitalist:

Your issue admits of a plain and simple answer.

Whether an employer objects to paying insurance premiums for employees for surgical abortions, abortifacients, any form of "birth control" whatsoever, blood transfusions, prescription medications costing more than $4 a month, medical marijuana, nursing home care, hospitalization or name your medical care of concern, a conservative of any stripe (traditionalist or libertarian or whatever) should readily concede that the problem is Obozocare itself or any similar plan (Romneycare? Schmuckie Chewmer care?),

On what basis does Congress possibly claim authority to mandate upon employers at employer expense or otherwise a scheme of such medical "insurance," one size fits all or otherwise?

SCOTUS ought to drop the facade of this "law" being somehow justified as a "tax" or constitutional in any way.

Let's also, as a matter of policy, and assuming that the law somehow survives, are morally conservative employers to be required to pay for "gender reassignment surgery?" Sterilizations? Euthanasia? Employers MAY OFFER these coverages and more, to their hearts' content and to the limit of the employers' ability to pay all or part of the premiums. Or not, as the employer sees fit.

I can imagine the passage of legislation requiring employers to give full disclosure to prospective and current employees of any employer provided medical insurance or other insurance. That is an anti-fraud measure and may guide the employee in whether to seek employment elsewhere, as available.

This scheme of liberty is also known as..... laissez faire capitalism.

23 posted on 07/10/2014 6:26:39 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

The media has failed to mention a passage in Justice Alito’s ruling that although Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay for drugs they oppose on religious grounds, the insurance company DOES so all employees have access to all 20 drugs, including those that produce abortions. This would be true of Jehovah Witness owners or any other sincere religious objection.

Here’s the exact comment from Justice Alito’s majority opinion:
“The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero. Under that accommodation, these women would still be entitled to all FDA-approved contraceptives without cost sharing.”

This refers to an exception created by the Department of Health and Human Services that forces insurers to pick up the tab for coverage objected to by religious non-profit organizations and churches.

Women employed by these organizations receive the same coverage, medications, and cost-free contraceptives as everyone else as mandated by HHS, even though the organizations themselves refuse to pay for that coverage.


24 posted on 07/10/2014 6:46:47 PM PDT by Paige Turner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk

Well in all truth, minimum wage laws works the same way...we allow government to dictate a minimum compensation standard else you can not employ that person. I don’t agree but I do understand how one could argue the case


25 posted on 07/10/2014 8:04:54 PM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Neither the health care companies nor the Supremes will give a rip about this. They won’t craft special health care plans for this nonsense nor should they. The issue is Obamacare itself not blood transfusions


26 posted on 07/10/2014 8:24:29 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

You know this whole mess could have been averted if the Government(part of them at least)hadn’t delved into an area where they have no business.....health care.


27 posted on 07/10/2014 9:05:44 PM PDT by oldtech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: oldtech

bump


28 posted on 07/10/2014 9:07:04 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
I agree with you on that however inartfully I may have expressed myself. I tend to agree with the obviousness of Rush's attack on minimum wage laws to the effect that, if $10 is a good idea, wouldn't $25 be a better idea or $50 or $100 or $1,000.

OTOH, employers in a truly free market will find themselves having to pay competitive wages or watch their employees go to employers who will.

I also do not object to deviations from the standard for other reasons. Catholic employers were urged by Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum Novarum (ca. 1893) to pay a wage sufficient to allow employees to comfortably support a family and acquire modest means of production and/or property out of any modest surplus. This ought not be confused with Marxism either because that encyclical was, in fact a profoundly anti-Marxist document. Leo XIII simply urged Catholic employers accordingly. He did not ask governments to intervene with legislation.

One theory of what Leo XIII was driving at was that an employer who is generous to his employees need not worry about them leaving his employ lightly nor about their loyalty.

I'll stand behind my maximum wage crack but it was directed at Rove and his ilk on another thread having to do with Rove's desire that we conservatives make a deal with Obozo on immigration (which would benefit Rove's crony "capitalist" buddies and patrons.

God bless you and yours!

29 posted on 07/10/2014 10:56:54 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: porter_knorr

We shall soon see, perhaps...


30 posted on 07/11/2014 1:29:32 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
As could vasectomies under EBP’s.
31 posted on 07/11/2014 1:30:13 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: struggle
That isn't the issue. The issue is that Obamacare (which I am opposed to, and have posted threads against Obamcare here at FR ad nauseum) would cover the blood transfusion.

1.) If you have just as many who own a company as who brought the case from Hobby lobby to the SC, or 2.) an owner(s) have enough employees at a company for it to meet the threshold of either paying a fine or providing EBP’s (I am not sure what the present Obama adm. threshold # is right now) then they can say that they in good conscience cannot support blood transfusions being on their EBP’s - and thus they are going to let the gov’t (ObamaCare) foot the bill, or let their employees pay out-of-pocket.

The same scenario could happen with vasectomies or infertility treatments, as has been pointed out.

32 posted on 07/11/2014 1:36:11 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: x

I had no intention from the start to attack the ruling, but rather my intent was to point out the law of unintended consequences.

And Fuzz was massively correct in post #16: SCOTUS made its ruling based upon the premise that the personal beliefs of the company were enough to deny insurance coverage.


33 posted on 07/11/2014 1:40:17 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000; All

That is what baffles me...

Here at FR that usually is the mantra (a mantra that I support): if you don’t like it, go somewhere else and work. Period.

Now, some seem to say here that, no, we must force the company to provide blood transfusions even if SCOTUS made its ruling purely on the stance of closely held religious view(s).

It seems as if we have some here that like religious liberty for their church or belief system, but not for others.


34 posted on 07/11/2014 1:43:46 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BlackElk
The even more Laissez-Faire Capitalist answer is: if you don't like that a company will not provide the birth control options that you want: then go work somewhere else.

If a company adheres to the SCOTUS ruling (as Fuzz was massively correct on in post #16) and says, basically, that vasectomies are an abhorrence to their personally held religious views: then go work somewhere else.

If you don't like that a company doesn't have an EBP: go work somewhere else.

Thus, you now truly know the scheme of liberty.

We don't need Obamacare, but we don't need the SCOTUS ruling either. The law of the land should be: if you don't like it, go work somewhere else.

35 posted on 07/11/2014 1:49:35 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: plain talk
The SCOTUS ruling was based upon: the personal beliefs of the owners of a closely held company were enough to deny insurance coverage.

If the owners of a closely held company have religious objections to vasectomies, infertility treatments, blood transfusions, etc, etc, they will try to deny.

Then the lawsuits will come,

Then theses issues will work their way up.

Or do you think that the majority on SCOTUS will only safeguard closely held religious beliefs for some religious peoples, but not all?

36 posted on 07/11/2014 1:54:13 PM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
The Hobby Lobby ruling made no mention of whether or not birth control kills a human being, only that the personal beliefs of the owners of a closely held company were enough to deny insurance coverage for those prescriptions.

True, they couldn't rightly do that without re-opening a huge can of worms, could they?

But surely part of the unspoken context would be that this involves something very important and controversial: if owners of the closely-held company refused to pay for all forms of birth control would the court have reached the same decision?

I was coming at this more from a theological or moral point of view, rather than a legal or political one, though. If you believe something is wrong, is it wrong just for you or wrong for everybody?

My first thought was live-and-let-live, but on reflection, it does look like the stronger your convictions the more likely you are to believe that your belief should apply to everyone, whether or not you want that belief enshrined in law.

Of course, that has nothing to do with what the court ruled actually ruled in the case, but hypothetical questions can get us moving in different and unexpected directions.

37 posted on 07/11/2014 1:57:55 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: x

“Of course, that has nothing to do with what the court ruled actually ruled in the case, but hypothetical questions can get us moving in different and unexpected directions.”

Which is why the “unspoken context” is a bad way to make law and set precedence. If the only justification for a ruling is a deeply held personal religious belief, the interpretations are vague and arbitrary that will more than likely lead to the courts deciding what religious beliefs are valid.


38 posted on 07/11/2014 2:06:42 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz

If owners of the closely-held company refused to pay for all forms of birth control would the court have reached the same decision?


39 posted on 07/11/2014 2:15:55 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Look..no one has to GIVE YOU anything.. employment is a contract between two people.. you and your employer. . So if health insurance is part of the package fine ...if it’s not fine ..if it only has some parts you like and some you don’t fine.

Truth is I really I prefer cash only for employment..

All the benefits like health insurance is really barter beween the two parties....

why the government should dictate that some of your compensation must be in the form of barter and the barter must include certain items is nuts


40 posted on 07/11/2014 2:42:49 PM PDT by tophat9000 (An Eye for an Eye, a Word for a Word...nothing more)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: x

“If owners of the closely-held company refused to pay for all forms of birth control would the court have reached the same decision?”

Apparently so because the Hobby Lobby decision did just that by saying that all, I believe the number was 20, forms of birth control fall under this ruling, not just the 4 originally objected to in the suit.


41 posted on 07/11/2014 2:46:26 PM PDT by Fuzz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

Yes I do. I don’t think all religions are the same. Jim Jones had a religion too. This belief that blood transfusions are bad is extreme and downright nutty. Blood transfusions save lives. Not like the concern over killing babies. so it is quite different. Supremes won’t mess with it but if they did they would devise a simple remedy that would have little effect on ObamaCare

I do get your argument. slippery slope — lets keep demonstrating how this law tramples rights etc I get it. However I think it borders on pathetic to harp on how owners now have to fund health care plans for employees that allow awful blood transfusions. A special plan without transfusions would cost no different.

I just think / hope more effective cases can be made than this. This is pretty far down on my give-a-damn list. I want the whole law repealed.


42 posted on 07/11/2014 3:13:21 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist

The Hobby Lobby decision specifically said it did NOT apply to blood transfusions. This is in part because you cannot buy a month’s worth of blood transfusions at Walmart for $9...


43 posted on 07/11/2014 3:15:58 PM PDT by Mr Rogers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist; Fuzz
I fully agree with this post #35 of yours until we get to the last paragraph.

Obozocare or any other mandatory governmental scheme forcing private employers to fund government priorities in medical insurance is an abomination. Hacking chunks off the monster is certainly not objectionable from an actual laissez-faire POV. If an employer morally objects to paying for the murder of innocent babies, let SCOTUS interfere and put a stop to it. IUDs, morning after pills, or any other abortifacient or artificial birth control or sterilizations of any sort, or viagra, or "gender reassignment surgeries," or most psychiatric nonsense, or any other similar allegedly medical hobby scheme: megadittoes. Heart, lung, liver transplants and the like, likewise. Those are easy since defunding those would conform to my morality. I normally have no objection to blood transfusions in the absence of the upcoming college-based "gay" national blood drive day. Jehovah Witnesses do. They should not have to pay for what they regard as an abomination (with some Scriptural foundation). Christian Science devotees have far wider moral objections to medicine. As employers, they ought not to be coerced into paying for what they regard as morally abhorrent.

Eventually, we may be left with agnostic or atheist employers of a libertarian bent who, based upon the questionable "virtue of selfishness" creed of serial adulteress and social anarchist Ayn Rand, "morally" object to being taxed at all or required to provide anything for others, much less Obozocare. I would gladly relieve them of the entire burden of Obozocare by having it repealed altogether for them and for everyone else, at least as a mandatory program and not privately negotiated benefits.

One other probably unintentional problem with your post is that you say: "if you don't like that a company will not provide birth control options...." I think it more accurate to say that a company may not PAY for an employee's birth control or babykilling or sex change operation or whatever. The employer is normally not the medical provider. If Sandra Fluke has a problem with this in her dwindling career in fertility, she can pay for her own birth control, abortions or whatever she may deem necessary even if she feels an inner need to become Alexander by surgical means.

If liberals were not forever piling idiotic liberal agendas onto every breath we take, life would be a LOT less expensive. Long before Obozocare, I suffered the shame of having Rosa DeLauro as my Congressthing. She was hot as a summer day in hell to make psychiatric nonsense a mandatory part of each and every medical policy in the land. Given time, rank idiots like DeLauro (the Demonrat Assistant Whip and Marxist jackass extraordinaire) would probably want to make plastic surgery, facial makeovers and whole body transplants mandatory in each policy. In her case, of course, that would be special interest legislation but we are expected to be gentlemen and not notice that.

The simple answer is an honest disclosure by the employer of just what the employer is voluntarily willing to provide or of what has been negotiated between employer and employee(s) followed by decision by the employee as to whether to work for the employer or move on.

Without making anything mandatory, it might be better to construct medical insurance policies from the ground up. Include the normal run of maladies to which we, as humans, are likely to be subject if we live long enough: cardiovascular disease, cancer, stroke, kidney failure, and the like. Want an AIDS rider in case one's social habits may place one at a higher than normal risk? Want coverage for lung cancer just in case your five pack a day habit was a physical as well as fiscal disaster? Abortion coverage, sterilization coverage, cirrhosis of the liver coverage arising from alcohol abuse, new medical frontiers where no man or woman has gone before (guinea pig coverage), etc. If your employer objects to providing such coverage, you are on your own!

That way, the US is a more free country than it otherwise would be and medical insurance will be a lot MORE affordable for responsible folks and a bit more expensive for those determined to be among the rest.

Also, medical savings accounts, anyone? Make deposits tax free and medical expenditures including preventative care, likewise. If you die before you spend it, it pass tax free to your designate heirs or those who are heirs at law if you have no last will and testament.

I have known the scheme of liberty all along but it certainly embraces the Hobby Lobby decision until we can get rid of Obozocare altogether. (And not replace it with the also despicable tyranny of Romneycare or Christiecare or Jebbiecare or Fauxcahontascare or Hildebeastcare or anyone else care).

44 posted on 07/11/2014 4:23:02 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: x
The morality in question is that of the employer whom Obozo was coercing to PAY for what the employer deems to be immoral behavior. No one, by virtue of the Hobby Lobby decision, is telling the employee that the employee cannot use birth control or abortifacient birth control or even have his/her baby surgically dismembered in utero as inconvenient. If you wanted to do any of those things and I, a total stranger, refuse to pay for your desired procedure because I deem that procedure immoral, just how am I denying you any asserted right to birth control, abortifacient birth control or to have your baby surgically dismembered in utero???? I am not! And, if I were your employer and likewise refused to pay for the cost of your doing any of those things, that would not make any difference whatsoever as to whether you are allowed to do any of those things.

I believe verrrry strongly in your right to keep and bear arms. In fact, it is the law. If I were convinced that you were somewhat less responsible than my comfort level would require, I have every right NOT to go to the local gun shop and buy a Beretta for you, much less pay for it with my own funds. That way, if you stick up a liquor store and shoot the clerk, at least I am not responsible for your behavior. I don't have to lend you my car much less buy one for you, especially if I know you to be a heavy drinker even when driving. And, in a free society, I don't think I need SCOTUS to approve my decision to say no but, during the dictatorship of Obozo, it is a comfort to have the Hobby Lobby decision nonetheless.

45 posted on 07/11/2014 5:23:53 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Sometimes it may be hard to remember that SCOTUS is no more our national council of philosophers than it is supposed to be our continuing constitutional convention without need of ratification by the states. The SCOTUS is limited in its jurisdiction to real cases and controversies between real litigants and not faculty lounge speculations on perfect philosophical answers to general questions.

Litigation is a messy but usually necessary way to resolve precise narrow questions. Can Hobby Lobby's Evangelical Christian owners and the closely held corporation that is their business entity be required against the morality of the owners to fund four abortifacient forms of birth control? Not can anyone anywhere ever be forced to pay for whatever?

So, there may be future cases involving vasectomies, infertility treatments, blood tranfusions or many other less controversial procedures. So be it.

46 posted on 07/11/2014 5:36:16 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Laissez-faire capitalist
Sometimes it may be hard to remember that SCOTUS is no more our national council of philosophers than it is supposed to be our continuing constitutional convention without need of ratification by the states. The SCOTUS is limited in its jurisdiction to real cases and controversies between real litigants and not faculty lounge speculations on perfect philosophical answers to general questions.

Litigation is a messy but usually necessary way to resolve precise narrow questions. Can Hobby Lobby's Evangelical Christian owners and the closely held corporation that is their business entity be required against the morality of the owners to fund four abortifacient forms of birth control? Not can anyone anywhere ever be forced to pay for whatever?

So, there may be future cases involving vasectomies, infertility treatments, blood tranfusions or many other less controversial procedures. So be it.

47 posted on 07/11/2014 5:36:27 PM PDT by BlackElk (Dean of Discipline, Tomas de Torquemada Gentlemen's Society: Rack 'em Danno!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: tophat9000
As I previously said, I personally believe that if you don't like your place of employment, or their EBP/insurance plans, etc, then go work somewhere else.

That said, SCOTUS could have said just that. They should have said that their ruling will allow any closely held company to offer whatever they choose, and if you don't like it, get on Obamacare (although I have opposed Obamacare from its beginning). Roberts upheld Obamacare. Talk to him about it. Additionally, they also could have said that the marketplace will decide: those who are outraged by Hobby Lobby's health care benefits package can stop buying there, boycott them, and take their money elsewhere.

48 posted on 07/12/2014 9:02:41 AM PDT by Laissez-faire capitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Fuzz
The Hobby Lobby ruling made no mention of whether or not birth control kills a human being, only that the personal beliefs of the owners of a closely held company were enough to deny insurance coverage for those prescriptions.

not true...Hobby Lobby still covers 16 birth control pills/methods....they objected to the 4 that cause a fertilized egg (child) to be aborted.

49 posted on 07/12/2014 8:10:29 PM PDT by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson