Forums → WEPR → Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision

Sorry for the double post, I just want to make something clear.

The issue here isn't that businesses shouldn't be able to dictate their own policies - they should. It isn't whether women "need" (literal definition as pertaining to continuing to live) those 4 specific kind of birth control methods that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide.

The issue here is that Hobby Lobby (the owners of it) are not having their religious rights infringed upon by having to provide the full range of healthcare services to their employees. It's the employees who are being discriminated against by the owners; the owners, who are pushing their religious beliefs onto their employees.

The employees work for the company. They are who make the money for Hobby Lobby. They are entitled to compensation for their work. The owners do not get to use their religion as an excuse to not provide parts of that compensation, which the government had previously mandated that they must provide. The precedent this sets and what further objections "companies" can make on religious grounds to not provide something they do not want to is a very troubling prospect. That is the issue here.

The universal declaration of human rights Article 3 is "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person." Right to freedom of worship comes in at Article 18 and states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

Thus:
Security of person is more important than freedom of worship.
It is not a universal right to make others comply with your religion.

Sorry if this was brought up, I only had the chance to gloss over the last 5 pages here. I thought what was said in this video had a good point.
Theft and Compensation

Basically the video is saying the health insurance came as part of your pay for working for this company and until now that has included covering birth control. So by taking this away they are taking away part of the pay the employees are receiving. This makes sense as now (unlike before) those employees will have to get birth control out of pocket, where they didn't before.

Thus:
Security of person is more important than freedom of worship.

The order in which things appear in the constitution do not imply importance/superiority of said article.

This video get's into a bit more detail on what the first video I posted was talking about. Also the person who did this one has the job of doing wage negotiations, so he would be knowledgeable on this subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqXn7U0okv4

You guys know you can get free contraceptives at your local planned parenthood, right? It's government-funded and everything.

You guys know you can get free contraceptives at your local planned parenthood, right? It's government-funded and everything.

it's always given by people against birth control as an alternative while they simultaneously are fighting to take that away too.

But really, companies should not have to provide contraceptives of any kind to employees,

I can just as easily say that companies should not have to provide medical services of any kind to employees. If people want it, people should go get it for themselves.

The problem with that is a lack of understanding how insurance works. Companies get a huge advantage when it comes to purchasing health insurance for the same reason companies get one when it comes to buying paper or anything else. Bulk purchases give discounts. The rate at which a company can provide health insurance for an employee is cheaper than that which the employee could get themselves by a lot. Even if the employer pays the employee the exact amount they would be paying for that employees health insurance, the employee is getting screwed because they can't get the same deals as the company could have.

I think that it's a reasonable right of a company to deny something as controversial as birth control if they so choose,

I don't. Birth control is a medical thing. It's related to the health of the employee and may not be used simply to prevent pregnancy, and even if it is used to solely prevent pregnancy, that's still medical. The company has no right to say what medical decisions their employee can make and has no moral grounding to dictate how their employees live their lives. Further, this bull**** about not providing stuff for birth control is hypocritical, because they have absolutely no problem paying for Viagra for their employees or investing in birth control in order to fund their employees retirement fund. It's very simply a moral judgement made against women by the owners of Hobby Lobby.

just as L'Oreal can choose to void someone's contract if they are found to be hunters or something like that

Wut.

It shouldn't be up to the employee what benefits they recieve.

Yeah. Companies give their employees what they feel they deserve and the employees should be happy no matter what it is. Employees are just the company's property after all.

Yeah. Companies give their employees what they feel they deserve and the employees should be happy no matter what it is. Employees are just the company's property after all.

I'm glad we agree on something.

In my humble opinion, I think you should get your sarcasm meter checked.