Why is the Hobby Lobby Case So Controversial?
 

This is something I don't understand. Basically, Hobby Lobby decided not to cover the costs of birth control for their employees as a career benefit, as part of the Affordable healthcare act. The reason they cite for this is religious beliefs-the owners believe it is immoral for them to fund it.

What I don't understand is why people act like they're being denied a human right. Hobby Lobby isn't firing people for using birth control. All they're doing is refusing to pay for it directly themselves.

So many upset with this case don't even realize that there's no such thing as a free lunch. To fund paying for birth control, it would likely result in reduced salary, as birth control is an increased expense for the company.

The women working for the company can buy birth control with their paycheck if they wish to have it. Why does the company need to take money out of the paychecks of everyone to pay for it? Why is the government supposed to tell everyone how to spend their money? isn't America supposed to be a free country? Those that chose not take advantage of it are essentially being robbed due to the expenses associated with it taking away from the wages of everyone. Those who do take advantage of it can just buy it with their own money if the company doesn't support it.

Now if Hobby Lobby was firing female workers for using birth control, then I'd be really upset. But simply refusing to pay for it themselves directly? This seems a bit extreme to be upset about.


Please enlighten me. I'm probably missing something.

Insurance can cover birth control without a co-pay. A larger group purchasing insurance lowers the risk to the insurance company and therefore the cost. Wouldn't cost the companies extra.

Have no fear GOAT is here. Im not familiar with the situation, but based on what you said about the company stating religious belief as the reason for not covering it, I would guess is why people are making a "big deal". Now it turns into discrimination against non-believers.

This is one of the things about America that always seems strange to me. The whole thing of employers covering everything like that and the importance of insurance. I'm not always up to date with the American politics so could you answer this, would Obamacare stop this sort of thing being such an issue?

It's unfortunate, since many women need birth control for controlling their periods as well. As Imprint mentions, it wouldn't cost the company extra-- they're just denying a kind of treatment due to personal beliefs. As much as I'm Catholic and understand the discomfort some have towards birth control, it's not really fair towards these women to have less options.

If you're a guy, you may not automatically understand the awful inconvenience of having a heavy period, especially while working.
Without birth control:
- With some women, even a large pad won't carry you til 1pm
- Basically, your day would consist of changing your pad every 1-2 hours(if you remember to), just so you don't bleed on yourself until your next meeting.
With birth control:
- you can last on 1 pad for much longer, like 6-10 hours at least
- also allows you to "schedule" your period, basically decide if you want to deal with it over the weekend or weekdays. Obviously, most working women would go with the weekend.

Then this isn't even covering how some women take birth control pills in case of rape-- out of fear, and precaution.

Yeah, they could pay out of pocket, and those that need it will have to. But by not supplying it, they're making the working lives of these women harder than it has to be.

I don't see why your employer should decide what kind of health benefits you do or do not get.

They actually do still cover most forms of birth control, just not "morning-after" and IUD types. I think it's controversial because it could pave the way for employers to not cover other types of health benefits because it goes against their personal beliefs.

It shouldn't be contoversial.

Agreed. The whole point of standardized health care in the first place is so that they don't. Here's the controversy.

I'm sorry but, why should an arts and crafts store have to buy birth control for their employees?

Birth control has no relevance to the business, therefore by buying it for their employees it would basically just be giving them free stuff.

Unfortunately that's how modern employment works. Pay doesn't just come in the form of a salary or wage, but in the benefits employees receive such as insurance. Of course, this means lower salaries to pay for these programs.

Basically this case is just a matter of Hobby Lobby not including Birth control as something covered by their insurance program.

Pretty sure this whole scenario is a result of Obamacare.

Yes I know, I just think it's a dumb idea.

Skill do you even read posts? Why don't you try re-reading Latte's post and when you fully understand it, re-read mine?

Yes, I read both of those two posts. Latte outlined the importance of Birth control. I never denied that Birth Control can be considered important or that it has a multitude of uses besides preventing pregnancy.

As for your post, it still seems a bit flawed. The money to pay for birth control has to come from SOMEWHERE. The insurance will cost more if it has to cover birth control than if it doesn't, because there is more to pay for. And more expenses put towards employees would require reduced wages. You don't need to be an actuary to understand that. If there's more risks and expenses associated with something, I will charge more. Insurance companies exist to make a profit, so they can't take a net loss.


I also don't understand why Latte says Hobby Lobby providing birth control would give women more options. By not providing it, women have the option to either purchase it, or not purchase it and use their money on something else. By providing it, women are forced to take reduced wages as a result, even if they do not wish to take advantage of birth control. If anything, its less options. Hobby Lobby's decision not to provide birth control doesn't prevent them from acquiring it if they want it.

It's just coming out of their salary anyways. If you're going to argue that its a need, and that it isn't fair for women, why not deal with the horrible wage inequality between men and women instead? If there's more expenses with hiring a female employee than a male employee, companies will pay the female employee less to make up the difference. Some companies simply do it because they can, even if female employees are just as useful to the company as a male one, with the same benefits. Why not establish some form of law that makes gender wage inequality illegal? That seems far more useful in protecting women's rights IMO. The including of birth control under Obamacare simply increases the cost of hiring a female employee, which could worsen the already poor wage inequality.

You dont pay an extra five dollars to get insurance with free birth control. It costs the same.

It costs more to cover birth control, I don't think you understand how money works. There's no such thing as a free lunch. Nothing in life is truly free. It has to be paid for from somewhere

Birth Control is considered health care. Companies should be required to give their employees health care, shouldn't they?

The cost is nominal when you are dealing with a large bundle of health care plans (which companies as like Hobby Lobby are managing). Under large groups the insurance is cheaper than purchasing at alone. Birth control falls under preventative medicine which insurance companies provide to reduce the risk factor (which is why they provide it with no co-pay).

Try reading this article since I assume I'm not explaining it clearly.

Why should they?

Because that's how it works in America, sadly.

Oh I see. So are wages lower to accommodate the health care?

Wage gap isn't as big as you think. Think about things such as maternity leave and what not. Men are generally willing to take greater risk. Then you have to remember that they takes ALL wages across the board. This is including predominately male jobs like mining, lobster fishing, etc. You know, things with a 75% chance of death. Granted I know there is a difference in some pay, it's just no wheres near as big as some people think because of this.

Come at me


Hobby Lobby should be forced to adhere to the rules and regulations set by your federal government. Religion + religious beliefs have no place in areas of business, government or education. Hell, if they're allowed to get away with this, then what's stopping other business owners from forming their own religion, having it recognized as a religion and then stating that paying their employees anything over $4.00 an hour is against their beliefs because "no man or woman should be paid a salary greater than $4.00 an hour as it is considered blasphemy."

So i did a quick research throughout the wiki world to find out what was so controversial. Obamacare states that companies have to provide certain contraception to their employees or face a fine. Hobby lobby claims the government cant force them to go against their religious belief. To what I understood is that they provide birth control pills, but refuse to pay for the after day pill and the after week pill which they consider a form of abortion. So the CONTROVERSY is more about religion than money IMO.

source in case anyone wants to read it
http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/hobbylobby.asp

It is based entirely on religious beliefs and not money, but Skill was asking about financial implications moreso than idealogical.

It's more that health care costs are higher since it's a for profit business.

I see, not familiar how medical benefits work, so Ill just watch the argument from the sidelines.

If they can get away with their religious rights on the constitution, then I should too. Truth is, nearly every law could be broken by pulling the "religion" card, so that is why the US government has so much trouble dealing with cases like this.

Religion my ass. The guys who own Hobby Lobby are probably some of the biggest crooks on the face of the planet.

Aside from religious and sex-based discrimination against employees, it is also a way for companies like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga to undermine the controversial Affordable Care Act and get out of helping to pay for additional costs associated with contraceptives.

In other words, it's more money in their pockets in the long run.

What Latte said was right. But, Flo is also correct in they only denied 4 of the (20?) birth controls. Many people are taking it as a sexist issue but its freedom of religion. If you dont like it dont wonk for them! Go work at Michael's instead.

Ya, because people who work at Hobby Lobby have job offers overflowing their ****ing voicemail!

It's has little (if anything) to do with freedom of religion. It's solely based on the fact the crooks at Hobby Lobby want to bull**** their employees and save a few bucks while they're at it.

Its religion. Christianity is against abortion. These "morning-after" pills kill the already fertilized egg. Killing the egg = abortion

That's like saying it's okay for one religion to push its beliefs onto its employees, even if their employees do not share their beliefs.

Also, if you removed a fertilized egg from the womb immediately, it would not be able to survive. It's not the same as a baby. It's goop at that point. If you don't believe me, pick up a science textbook. It takes quite some time for an infant to develop enough to survive outside the womb.

If you dont like it, dont work there.

And we are agreeing on the same thing for your second part.

But... the point is that this company is denying rights because of religion...

*sigh*

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits impeding the free exercise of religion.

Theology is AGAINST abortion. THUS, THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO EXCERCISE FREE RELIGION. They were being forced to go against what they believe in.

HMMMM... I THINK THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S DENYING THEIR CONSTUTIONAL RIGHT!

It's a simple issue omfg

You have that, but you also have human rights that an employer must provide and this infringes on it. I'm all for expressing your beliefs and all but religion has absolutely no place in commerical and public sectors.

"I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

Religion always has a place. That is the beauty of Free Enterprise.

Ya... because the government of a country that is supposed to separate state and church but doesn't is a perfect example...

It's where the case happened it's a perfect example.

Take into account that although the Hobby Lobby v Sebelius case sprung up questions between religion and government, their arguments weren't even valid to begin with. Their first argument was that although the Affordable Care Act permitted them to choose not to provide insurance, they were being taxed " applied financial burden" and doing so harming the company. That was a joke, their numbers showed that tax was way less than what it could cost to provide each employee with full medical coverage as quoted by Justice Kagan, "you can't call something a financial burden when it in no way harms the individual(company)." Also, the Affordable Care Act also stated that should an employer deny an employee coverage, they would have to give the employee a sufficient amount of pay that would allow the individual to seek outside coverage. And even then, their numbers showed that that option was cheaper than choosing to give each employee coverage.

Second, they tried pulling the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment which was automatically shut down by Justice Ginsburg. The Affordable Care Act does not address that the tax applied was a consequence of the decision to not give coverage to an individual because of their religious affiliations or decisions. They were given well detailed options that either way was the smarter choice than choosing to bring their "useless" complaint to the floor.

Now I'm not saying that the question between Religion and Politics is answered through the Affordable Care act for this case or any situation. Our government contradicts itself with the Religion Clause by opening sessions with prayers and using the Holy Bible in Courts. But the argument the that Affordable Care Act hinders one's religious decision is just not valid.

A perfect example of what? Ignoring the laws?

they probably wouldnt fire female workers for using birth control,they would get sued.

say,u worked at mcdonalds,and the salary was $11.00 a hour, and another place payed $5.00. the salary,should be based on what regular restraunts pay that they can afford to pay their workers.if they have 1.00 a hour, no one aould work there.
And,if u want equal wages, it wont happen.if u want birth control,which is not covered by hobby lobby,u will get the same as men,but have to spend it on birth control and go and buy it. it is equal wages, and,if a woman didnt get birth control and needed it,they should of saved their money to buy birth control. for example,if your a man, and u needed food,ur company doesnt give free food. u spent all ur money on a game,and u are going to die in a day unless u eat, but have to spend money for no reason,and work because no one gave u food and spent ur money on useless items.

summary i couldnt really explain above..:Women who need birth control will choose to get birth control,taking money out of their wages. if a woman doesnt need birth control but still have periods,she still ends up wasting money on getting rid of periods, or birth control, so, there will never be equal wages for women and men.employers like hobby lobby,shouldnt have topay for birth control, if they could of bought it with their own money that they got in their wage.
sorry if any of my information is wrong, since i know nothing of this,or rules for insurance either.

Dawn if you aren't even going to read the thread why post?

i read every post on this thread.i just posted for fun since i have nothing else to do,since my brother deleted all my multiplayer apps except for a flash playing app called puffin.
u guys are fighting because women have unequal rights,arent getting insurance for birth control,and having to spend their own money on birth control.its unfair,but since i dont believe in god,for me,we regenerate as another thing.im too lazy to type anything else for this thread so bye..

Added in the 1950s due to the political campaigning of a chaplain. It has only been in the pledge for a quarter of American history.

The founding fathers were secularists, and sought to get away from religious rule by the Church of England.

so true.if they refused and started a rebellion,they would of killed them all.

My point is that it is there. And England's religious rule was one religion. They came for religious freedom.

Religion is kept separate from the government, but because the government accommodates religious groups on occasion (like allowing native americans to possess and use peyote / ayahuasca for religious rituals) a lot of christian groups have been trying to gain control over people through corporations instead of the government itself. (And I say christian, because other religious groups have not done so... yet.)

Aside from Hobby Lobby, Chick-Fil-A is a great example of this. Their founder is a southern baptist, and the company's profits have been donated in the past to help fund anti-gay organizations. And thanks to the recent Citizens United ruling, they can also donate unlimited amounts of money to political candidates who also support their cause.

That means politicians get more money for ads, more media coverage, and as much as they need to travel to whatever locations they want during election season. And the amount they receive may far outweigh that of other candidates. But if those companies are owned by someone who is strongly religious, they may stop funding these people and send money to people who do support their beliefs instead.

Unfortunately, because of this, religious owners of corporations are now allowed to pull strings behind the scenes in America, and it has caused plenty of outrage because they often donate money to organizations that may discriminate against their very own employees, and their workers can't do anything about it except quit. (Wherein the company will save money by not having to pay them, and have the option to hire someone else instead.)

The groups and politicians they support then lobby and vote to try and get laws passed which allow them to infringe upon the civil rights of others, and aim to make certain groups into second-class citizens through legal means. The Hobby Lobby case is just one of many such attempts to roll back laws to the way they were in 'the good old days' when very few people had all the rights they do now.

For **** sakes man, quit being an illiterate **** and use spaces after punctuation.

Yes I mad. I very mad.