SCOTUS

Here's what I don't get; the argument seems to be that employers shouldn't be required to provide insurance which includes contraception coverage because that would be providing someone with the means to obtain contraception. If instead the employee buys their own birth control using cash instead of insurance, the cash still came from the employer, so the employer is providing the employee with the means to obtain contraception either way, so how are those two things significantly different in terms of the employers contribution to that transaction?

What you do with your paycheck is not my business. FOR EXAMPLE: let's say we have an alcoholic. He/she pays for his/her alcohol with their paycheck, right? Okay, now instead of paying that person and letting him make his own choice of what to do with his paycheck, (which, by the way, is HIS right), how would you feel about cutting out the middle man and just buying his alcohol for him? Their IS a difference.

ONCE AGAIN, there are laws currently in place that businesses have to follow. Making me pay for your birth control should not be one of them and it isn't.

That actually was, and still is a law. The employer mandate and the requirement that insurance cover preventative care is a law. Besides that law, there are also laws that require you and your employer to pay into medicaid, which then covers birth control.

In THIS case the business owners "preference" is his/her right to their religious freedom. Your generalized questions, such as what I believe the government can't/shouldn't make laws about is not helpful to this conversation... we are discussing ONE SPECIFIC aspect.. which is the courts decision.

You just made the statement in this very same post (see above) regarding what the government can and can't require you to do, so it would seem to be relevant based on your own arguments.

What you do with your paycheck is not my business.

FOR EXAMPLE: let's say we have an alcoholic. He/she pays for his/her alcohol with their paycheck, right? Okay, now instead of paying that person and letting him make his own choice of what to do with his paycheck, (which, by the way, is HIS right), how would you feel about cutting out the middle man and just buying his alcohol for him? Their IS a difference.

I'm not sure that it's really accurate to compare someone who uses birth control with an alcoholic, but I'll play along. Employers aren't actually buying contraception for employees, their providing them with a means to obtain contraception as well as various other health services. The insurance company is basically playing the role of middleman. A more accurate comparison to your example would be if an employer provided a Costco membership as a form of compensation. If the employee/alcoholic uses that membership to buy alcohol at Costco, is the employer really "just buying his alcohol for him"?

Good day:

Hobby Lobby covered 16 contraceptives prior to the case, and will continue to cover 16 contraceptives after the case. They, Conestoga Wood, and others did not want to be forced to pay for those types of contraceptives (four in number) that can cause an innocent baby in the womb to be aborted. If it is an issue of a personal decision, then it should be personally paid for as part of being a responsible person (my opinion).

This issue ONLY came to the Supreme Court due to BIG government overreach where BIG government was trying to force their views and take away personal freedoms (human beings do run businesses; people like using the term "corporation" to take away from the fact human beings with values and beliefs are the ones in charge of their business(es)). Had President Obama and the democrats (keeping in mind Obamacare is 100% partisan, and Nancy Pelosi forced the bill down without it being properly read) allowed for conscientious objection to specific areas (such as birth control, abortion, and closely related items), then this would never have gone to court.

Had President Obama and the democrats listened to the concerns brought up by the Green Family, the Mennonite family behind Conestoga Wood, and the other family owned and operated businesses as well as non profits (such as the nuns) that they would be willing to be MORE THAN FAIR (16 out of 20 is more than fair) in what they would cover, and gave an exemption (as Obama and the democrats have willingly handed out to their buddies over and over and over again ad nauseum), this issue would have never gone to the Supreme Court.

This is not an access issue, and was never an access issue. It is one side having the very gall to say "stay out of my personal decisions/bedroom body" BUT keep your bloody mouth shut while I FORCE MY WAY INTO YOUR WALLET and TAKE OUT WHAT I WANT... and while I bloody rob you, you will smile and state it is charity!

Thank you.

How can you say business are not people? If you started a business and it is your business, how is it okay for the government to tell you that you MUST provide birth control to employees? That is YOUR business an this is a free economy. Nobody is forcing the employee to stay there; if they don't like what the employer has to offer, move on. My business, MY freedom of religion.

Incorporation intentionally and legally separates the business from the owner for financial gain...shouldn't they have to give up that status to then state that the business is an extension of their religious life?

Good day, toomuchbaloney:

Faith and religion are not one in the same. Corporations are run by individuals not robots; those individuals do not leave what they believe in at the door of their house once they leave it; at least those who truly believe in their faith, do not do so. Absolutely no one forces any of the employees who work at Hobby Lobby ($15 per hour to start, healthcare coverage that includes 16 out of 20 contraceptives, etc.), Conestoga Wood, or the other companies involved. Those employees accepted their benefit package for which the individuals who run the corporation put together. They are free to leave if they don't like the entire compensation package. They are free to negotiate; but as this is a free country, negotiation goes both ways (no guarantees). If any of the employees want to purchase any of the four (4) contraceptives out of 20 not included in the compensation package, they are free to do so (again, this was never an access issue) using their own money (SURPRISE, personal responsibility).

Thank you.

Good day, toomuchbaloney:

Faith and religion are not one in the same. Corporations are run by individuals not robots; those individuals do not leave what they believe in at the door of their house once they leave it; at least those who truly believe in their faith, do not do so. Absolutely no one forces any of the employees who work at Hobby Lobby ($15 per hour to start, healthcare coverage that includes 16 out of 20 contraceptives, etc.), Conestoga Wood, or the other companies involved. Those employees accepted their benefit package for which the individuals who run the corporation put together. They are free to leave if they don't like the entire compensation package. They are free to negotiate; but as this is a free country, negotiation goes both ways (no guarantees). If any of the employees want to purchase any of the four (4) contraceptives out of 20 not included in the compensation package, they are free to do so (again, this was never an access issue) using their own money (SURPRISE, personal responsibility).

Thank you.

Like most employees, they pay quite a bit of money every month into the cost of their health plan, so I'm not sure where this idea comes from that they are expecting someone else to pay for their contraception.

Some posters here apparently are under the impression that there are an abundance of jobs available for people to simply pick and choose from. Seriously, do you think that people can walk away from jobs because there is some sort of an employment glut in the country? Do you think that women should just step into unemployment because they have their choices for contraceptives reduced by their "religious" corporation? Are you willing to extend their unemployment benefit if they have trouble finding a comparable position?

Right, I didn't think so.

Nope, it seems that the stance is that the corporation has the right to impose their "religious" beliefs upon the employees lest the corporations be offended by their choice of contraception. It seems that it is unfair to expect the corporation to provide comprehensive health insurance which covers contraception and allow the women to choose their own method dependent upon the recommendations of their health care provider, their woman's own needs, and based upon the woman's personal religious beliefs. What other reproductive rights of the female employee should we expect that "religious" corporations might want to impact as part of their "constitutional rights"?

Individuals run corporations and those individuals have rights like the rest of them. Talk to President Obama and the democrats who control the senate (which has been blocking house bills left and right) as to the state of the economy. Don't want to work for a given company, free will works both ways -- they don't owe you a job, and you don't owe them to work there if you don't want to work there. Have trouble leaving a place of employment, that's your business, not societies. Personal responsibility should never be a novel concept.