*shaking head*

[henry quirk]

Please, call me Henry...

[henry quirk]

"Repugnant is an emotion."

I wrote 'morally repugnant' which, to my mind, is part and parcel with 'religious objection'.

*shrug*

#

"Court has said an employeer can impose his religious beliefs on his employees."

No.

The SC said the owners of a tightly owned/closely held company can refuse to pay (in part or in total) for services or products they, the owners, have a religious objection to.

The HL folks are evangelicals...the ruling imposes no obligations on, for example, an atheist to 'do' things the HL folks find religiously acceptable...the ruling only says the atheist 'can't' make the HL folks pay for (in part or in total) services or products the HL folks object to on religious grounds.

That's it...that's all.

There may be unintended consequences because of the ruling (as opportunists try to twist the ruling to suit themselves), but the ruling itself is unambiguous.

[henry quirk]

"The inherent problem is employer-provided insurance"

Only when it's mandatory.

If Joe wants to provide catastrophic insurance to all of his employees, that's on Joe.

If Joe wants to pay (some or all of) his employees enough so that each can attend to his or her medical needs as each sees fit, that's on Joe.

If Joe enters into idiosyncratic contracts with (some or all) individual employees to provide or make accessible 'this' or 'that', that's on Joe.

It's the mandatory nature of employer-based insurance that's the problem.

[henry quirk]

"So if an employer sexually exploits woman and grab their asses, well, the women should simply go elsewhere to work."

Or: punch the fucker in the head.

[DanaC]

The former - because not all birth control is about 'breaking' the reproductive system.

Maybe the pill is a better example - it is used for many reasons beyond a desire not to conceive:

Taking oral contraceptives (OCs) can slash your risk for both endometrial and ovarian cancer by more than 70 percent after 12 years; even just one to five years may lower your risk by 40 percent. They work by reducing the number of times you ovulate in your lifetime: Ovulation may trigger cell changes in the ovaries that can lead to cancer

So, if a woman has a family history of ovarian cancer, the pill is one way of reducing her high risk factor.

http://www.webmd.com/sex/birth-contr...-take-the-pill

It also, by stopping ovulation can reduce period pain. For women who suffer very bad periods and blood loss this can be a serious health benefit.

And one of the most common medical reasons for taking the pill:

Endometriosis, a condition in which uterine-lining tissue grows in other pelvic areas, can lead to scarring, severe pain, and sometimes infertility. The Pill stops the growth of tissue in other areas by reducing the hormones that cause the lining to build up.

[henry quirk]

"Surely the benefit they offer is healthcare insurance?"

Yep, but the owner is the contractor of service, not the employee.

As the 'owner', he or she or they should decide the nature, depth, and breadth of services offered.

#

"The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees."

I disagree.

The issue boils down to: can employees force an employer to provide a benefit said employer finds morally repugnant?

#

"The Court has said yes in general."

Nope.

All the SC said is that a closely held company (one not publically traded; one owned by one or a few) cannot be forced to offer a product or service the owner(s) of the company find morally reprehensible.

#

My own view (again): 'Never saw how the whole HL thing was a religious issue (was disingenuous to frame it as such). Seems to me: HL (as business) is the property of the owners who can use their property as they see fit (including deciding how much to pay employees and/or deciding what benefits to offer). That is: it's a property rights issue.'

I believe a bad precedent was set (though, obviously, not for the same reason you folks think).

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"The issue boils down to this simple question. Can an employer impose his religious beleifs on employees."

I disagree.

The issue boils down to: can employees force an employer to provide a benefit said employer finds morally repugnant?

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.

[henry quirk]

"I don;t see how it is a complicated notion that the health insurance given to employees becomes their property - and it should be up to them how they use it."

When the employee leaves the business, does the insurance follow him or her, or does it end with employment?

If the employee loses the coverage with their employment then the benefit is a privilege offered by the employer, not the property totally controlled by the employee.

#

"My employer doesn't have to right to tell me how to spend what it pays me."

No, but your employer can stop paying you (for just cause).

And: if the employer acts as conduit for the coverage (it contracts with the insurer, not you; it bears the burden of meeting requirements, not you) then the employer is 'owner' of the coverage.

Again: the owner determines (or should determine) the nature of compensation he or she offers, not the employee.

[Big Sarge]

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?

[Big Sarge]

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.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Big Sarge

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.

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.

[Gravdigr]

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

[Undertoad]

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.

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.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

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.

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

[Big Sarge]

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