As henry quirk says the employer contracts with the insurance company the employee is just a covered party.

The insurance isn't provided to the employee at no cost, the employer can then take the cost of the insurance out of the employees pay check ( or some proportion). The employee cannot just refuse the insurance either, unless they can prove alternate coverage. (That's how it works for me).
So yes, the employer is spending the employees pay.

At my corporation employees earning over $150K gross are responsible for 100% of the $22K cost of insurance. and it's crappy insurance for that money.
Theres sliding scale below that.
The big investor that owns this corporation and many others sets this as standard across all his companies.

"Insurance" is a misnomer anyway but I don't know a better word, "shell game" might be it. On our insurance you can still easily be out of pocket for thousands for day to day occurences, it just limits it instead of climbing into the tens of thousands in a dire circumstance.

It's both. Viagra is for fixing something that's broken and vasectomies are birth control. If female birth control isn't covered, then it's hypocritical to cover male birth control. But Viagra shouldn't come into it at all unless you want to mock men with health problems.

So let me see, we've had a Supreme Court ruling that upheld that the government could not force you to go against your political beliefs with your privately owned business. Isn't this part of the intent of the Bill of Rights?

If the employees aren't happy with their health care coverage, why don't they work some place else?

I'll tell you what, I won't mock men who may have health problems if you won't mock women who may also have health problems that would make pregnancy a risk.

Why should this have anything to do with "mocking health issues"? This is simply the right of privately owned businesses to provide benefit packages of their selection. If you don't like it, work someplace else or pay out of your pocket. I don't believe any of their employees are indentured servants and not free to change employment. BTW:

The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

Keep on dividing, people, keep on dividing...

I don't know about Ella, but on Plan B: this is all due to an anti-scientific misunderstanding of how the drug works.

It works by preventing ovulation.

Somehow, and good fuckin' lord I have no idea how this might happen, but somehow a bunch of miserable fucking dickheads got it into their tiny, uneducated minds, that Plan B prevents implantation of a fertilized egg.

No. Plan B works exactly like every other birth control drug. Don't believe me, you can look it up. And so those miserable, tiny, anti-scientific, uneducated pricks

ARE

ACTUALLY

CAUSING

MORE

ABORTIONS

BY

PROTESTING

PLAN B.

Well why did this have to go to the Supreme Court?? The women could have simply decided not to get pregnant.

Repugnant is an emotion. Emotions have no standing in the court. If this was about an emotion, it would have been never been heard.

Your sentence is missing fundamental underlying word that is the basis of their suit. It is completely about their religious beliefs. Their standards for what is socially acceptable (along with other irrelevant emotions such as ego) were never discussed in this case, were never considered, and was completely irrelevant to the court and to all parties. In fact, one who is emotional is often considered irresponsible or negligent. And so the word repugnant is never discussed by anyone but Henry Quick.

This case is 100% about their religious beliefs. To ignore the religion behind it is hypocrisy. Court has said an employeer can impose his religious beliefs on his employees. Only posts relevent to this court decision must include the word religion. Some will try to justify that decision by ignoring the entire basis of this case - which is a religious belief. Repugnant is how one would avoid admitting the problem with this decision. The court says one can impose their religious beliefs on employees. Impossible to be honest and deny this is about religious beliefs.

The entire case is not about choice in general as you claim. It is completely about the right of privately owned businesses to impose their religious beliefs on employees benefits. Posting without mentioning the only issue - religion - is beyond absurd.

Nobody said anything about denying social security contributions, restricting safety equipment, providing employee parking, or other benefits based on the employers emotions or whims. Nobody suggested benefits denied due to an employee's race, gender, height, age, or citizenship status. Only discussed is whether they can deny benefits based on the owner's religious beliefs. Not based in anything else. Only based on the owners religious beliefs. Youf post is dishonest if it does not discuss prime issue of this entire case - religion.

How to inspire hatred and dissention? How to worship satan? Let anyone impose their religion on anyone else. Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition.

But if this employer claims that imposing their religious beliefs via employee benefits is their HOBBY, they may have found a loophole. :D

There might even be a Lobby for this in Washington

Of course, Hobby Lobby invests in the companies that make the same drugs they won't pay for...

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...on-drug-makers

Which is how we know this is more about politics using religion rather than an ethics based stand.

Wull that and being against sex for pleasure, their traditional stomping ground, which tells them sex should have deadly serious consequences... amongst which, strangely enough, is... abortions. And a bunch of half-parented kids.