The Tenth Circuit Court:
“The particular burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by healthcare providers and patients covered by [the corporate] plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiff[s'] religion. Such an indirect and attenuated relationship appears unlikely to establish the necessary ‘substantial burden,’” Heaton wrote.
Should something already known to be a choice be forced on an employer?
No matter the cost?
The Little Sisters of the Poor take care of elderly patients in 31 countries, but on Dec. 16 a representative told the congregation of Saint Raymond of Peñafort Church in Springfield, Va., that her order could conceivably be forced to pull out of the United States if paying fines and penalties is the only alternative to compromising on the doctrines of their religion…
“[i]f we were to stop offering health insurance rather than comply with the mandate,” she told the National Catholic Register in October, “we would have to pay a $2,000 penalty per employee. This penalty aside, it just does not seem right to us to stop providing health insurance to our employees.”
“If we chose to offer insurance without the objectionable services,” she continued, “we would honor our consciences, but we’d have to pay $100 per day per employee. … [F]or an organization with 50 employees, that would mean almost $2 million per year.”
This seems a rather sensitive and difficult issue, particularly as I feel that birth control should not be a part of medical insurance to start with and certainly not one required by law.
However, any church or religious organization that chooses to participate in the business world by hiring employees, building a store, selling products or anything else should be required to follow the same laws and requirements of any other business. They are not relieved of that burden because of their religious views.
A private individual is a little more difficult, but in the end is in the same boat. If they wish to participate in the business world they have to follow the same rules as everyone else.
Everyone has to conform to the same rules, whether they disagree with them or not. Business, homeowners, employees and employers all operate under the same laws. Society has to have rules, and those rules either apply to everyone or it falls apart. Yes, we want separation of church and state, but there will inevitably be conflicts and they must be resolved in favor of society and not individual beliefs.
Then we have passed the wrong law right?
Hobby Lobby is not a person. Individuals have the right to religious freedom. I have the right to use birth control if I choose to, and I can have a free conscience about doing so because my religion does not tell me I shouldn't use it.
Those individuals whose religion tells them not to use birth control are free not to use it.
Laws are being made requiring birth control to be covered by insurance because corporations like Hobby Lobby are trying to take away people's ability to obtain birth control. That is not religious freedom, either. They are doing the same thing to their employees that they are complaining about the Obama administration doing to them.
That is why the courts are having to require insurance companies to provide birth control, because employers are making medical and religious decisions for their employees. If corporations would stay out of people's private lives and private decisions, these cases would not be in the courts.
Hobby Lobby is complaining about paying fines but maybe instead they should offer pay for their employees' prenatal care, hospital delivery fees and child-rearing costs when the employees who cannot afford birth control without insurance start popping out the babies.
I agree with wilderness: "Yes, we want separation of church and state, but there will inevitably be conflicts and they must be resolved in favor of society and not individual beliefs."
They weren't complaining about child rearing or birthing. They were complaining about abortion services.
Same argument applies. Abortion is legal. Their religion tells them that abortion is wrong. Others' religions may not. Other individuals are not religious at all. Like birth control, whether or not to have an abortion is a choice made by an individual. It is not Hobby Lobby's choice, or the choice the family members who own Hobby Lobby get to make for their employees.
A part of the problem as I see it is that Hobby Lobby is not complaining that they have to use the services, they are complaining that they can't force their religious belief onto their employees.
And yes, I understanding that there is a difference between forcing their belief and paying for the service, but the two are related.
No they are complaining the government is stomping a mud hole in their religious beliefs by forcing them to pay for someone's abortion.
I happen to agree with them.
So should they also be able to not cover mixed race children and blood transfusions, if that is their faith position?
That's the rub, isn't it? How about animal or even human sacrifice? Non-payment of taxes? Beating your child or stoning your wife?
We've already declared that the more gruesome parts of Sharia law cannot be applied in the US, how is that different?
That's not their position.
One thing at a time.
Hobby Lobby cannot pick and choose which medical procedures they deem morally acceptable for their employees.
At one point in my life I (unfortunately) worked for a company that was owned by scientologists, who do not believe in psychiatry or psychology and believe all drugs are bad. If they had their way, the insurance they offered would not have covered marriage counseling, Advil, antidepressants, morphine or chemotherapy. Thank goodness we have separation of church and state here in the USA, or as employees of this company we would have been limited to chiropractors, herbs, vitamins and colonics. My coworker who developed breast cancer would have been in a terrible spot.
If the people who run Hobby Lobby want to force their religious beliefs on their employees, maybe they need to pack up and relocate their business to Afghanistan or Iran, or some other country where religious law rules the government and its people.
I doubt it. Their religious position is that abortion is evil; that they should neither get an abortion nor give an abortion.
Supplying money to a govt. ordered insurance plan is neither one; it is paying for medical care that a patient needs or wants. When they try to extend the prohibition onto the act of paying it is stretching the point into also including that no one else can have an abortion, either, nor provide one.
As the whole point of separation is to prevent just such an action, it seems reasonable to prevent it here too. Too many people/organizations seem to feel that separation means that no one else can force beliefs on them while they can still force beliefs on everyone else. Doesn't work that way.
I am sure they feel as I do that they did not vote for this health care law but they are being forced to implement parts of it they don't want to because of their beliefs.
Nationalized health care should have been a national referendum and NO the reelection of Barack Obama was not it.
Some of our citizens apparently find cars evil and forbidden, but their taxes pay for roads.
Others are adamantly against blood transfusions but are forced to provide them for their kids.
The thing is, we can't give exceptions to general laws to anyone - laws quickly become useless when we do. Either a law applies to everyone or to no one. Example; the Amish used to sell milk years ago, but then quit when we required it be homogenized as that requires machinery and electricity which they do not allow on their farms. Another one in the news I've seen is a small group that gets together in groups of thousands for days; food and sanitation have been a tremendous struggle as laws change and require more of each.
We already make far to many exceptions for religious reasons; lets not allow them to make their own laws, too.
No problem, Hobby Lobby can simply accept the insurance terms and fire anyone of their employees who decides to take advantage of them, if indeed, their religious beliefs are so important.
So long as workers are forced to get their healthcare from employers, employers should be forced to provide full service.
That would include not only birth control, but covering a second spouse (even if you oppose divorce), covering a baby (even if you oppose children born out of wedlock, or mixed race marraiges) and covering blood transfusion (even if you oppose these for religious reasons).
If workers are given a similarly priced options outside of employment, then I would entertain this nonsense.
Just because they did not vote for it does not mean they don't have to follow it.
How about this scenario: Hobby Lobby wins their case and ends up providing only insurance that does not include any coverage of abortion services whatsoever. A pregnant employee then uses her salary to pay for 100% of her abortion. Money that Hobby Lobby paid her was used to fund an abortion, and again company executives feel they are funding something that goes against their beliefs. Should Hobby Lobby be able to dictate what their employees are allowed to spend their salaries on? What if another employee wants to blow his salary on cocaine and whiskey? Can Hobby Lobby dictate that drugs and alcohol may not be purchased with Hobby Lobby money, also? Where will Hobby Lobby draw the line?
I don't understand what about separation of church and state you don't understand, Barefootfae. Plain and simple we cannot force our own beliefs on others. Maybe the Hobby Lobby owners need to operate a church instead of a business.
Good point. Bennies, whatever the form, are part of the compensation package.
So if they don't like it just close up shop?
You don't like the speed limit, either obey it anyway, pay the price for disobedience or don't drive.
You don't like laws against marijuana either pay the price for using or don't use.
You don't like having to put in an ADA ramp to your business, either put it anyway, don't put it in and pay the price or shut down the business.
So yes, you don't like paying for birth control in your business either pay for it anyway, don't pay for it and pay the price for that or go out of business. It doesn't make much sense to allow everyone to claim that their personal interpretation of selected scriptural writings override the laws that society enacts.
We don't permit sharia law where it conflicts with US law, we don't permit child abuse (withholding medical care from children) that some gods require and there is no reason to permit disobeying this law either.
On second thought, cocaine is illegal. So let's just use whiskey, or a hotel room in which to meet up with a lover for premarital or extramarital sex.
Indeed. Any good employer should be more focused on maintaining their employees freedoms than controlling their sex lives. Freedom of religion should be more important that evangelizing because their company is part of the American civil society. And this is a core American ideal..
by ElSeductor2 years ago
Why must religious people impose their beliefs on others? Why can't religious people keep religion out of politics? Why must Muslims kill others over their beliefs? Why can't Christians keep their...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes....
by cooldad5 years ago
Were the founding fathers of this country Christians? I have always been under the impression that our country was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Why then, do so many people claim...
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the...
by Rad Man4 years ago
The USA is supposed to be a secular society, but the religion or faith of their politicians seems to be of upmost importance. Canada for example, is also a secular society, but their citizens don't care what faith their...
by Mick Menous23 months ago
As far as this whole Separation of Church and State thing in the United States is concerned, I personally believe that it is necessary. For example, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.