Forums → WEPR → Burwell v Hobby Lobby decision

Question: What defines a "closely held" company?

I don't really know how to react to this, I mean, I support religious freedom, but I don't know how to apply it to this case.

On one hand you got the bosses who don't want to violate their moral beliefs by supporting contraception, and the employees who feel they have the right to such contraception provision.

~~~Darth Caedus

What defines a "closely held" company?

I fully agree. You can't mandate an employer to provide health services that contradicts their religion.

That's why you don't leave it to the employer to provide the healthcare in the first place. Everyone wins!

It makes sense why they would do it and on the end of their religious rights I support it. But despite it being their choice this kind of decision in favor of them being allowed to exempt themselves from a law can easily create a large grey zone of religious belief vs. law.

All I see coming from this is this case right here being used as an example of how companies can exempt them selves from (certain) laws in the future.

All I see coming from this is this case right here being used as an example of how companies can exempt them selves from (certain) laws in the future.

If it has been decided that a female employee has a right to get contraceptive costs covered by insurance, then those costs have to be covered; if the employer refuses, the money simply has to come from somewhere else. The problem only arises when the employee does not get coverage.

But honestly, I am baffled that a corporation can claim to have religious beliefs. That's bureaucratic BS.

I'd go with "My religion prevents me from supporting worldly governments, therefore no taxes ever."

Plain disgusting. Keep your own religion, but if you're foisting it upon thousands of others, such that it affects their tangible lives, get away! I am deeply worried and appalled that the ruling could have a profound effect on the issue of whether companies can be religiously exempt from laws that are set up to protect the interests of the many. Hopefully a look into the definition of a "Person" is undertaken soon.

Religious freedom means the right to practice what you believe to an extent that it does not tangibly affect others negatively, it does not mean you would be insulated, protected and cloistered away from public concern for the totality of your beliefs! Especially when you are held accountable for thousands of others.

According to USA Today The contraceptives they are refusing to provide through medical insurance (and thus bringing about the supreme court ruling) are three specific types of emergency contraceptives that prevent the fetus from being fertilized or otherwise kill the fetus after fertilization. Hobby Lobby does identify itself as a Christian company who identifies life as starting with conception.
I have always believed that private companies should be allowed to identify themselves under a particular religion, and conform to that religion's spiritual beliefs and practices (such as not being open on Sunday.) Will that lose them customers? probably, but it's their right as American citizens. To my knowledge, they're not stopping ALL birth control, just ones that are used after conception, so I don't see an issue with it. Don't like the ruling? don't shop at or work for that company

It's more than that, pyro. The corporation has a responsibility towards their employees. If an employee would not be able to do some parts of the job, the consequences are likely relocation or lay-off. Why would an employer be treated differently? Your beliefs are yours, not those of all of your employees. If you don't like that, find another job.

And if you insist upon only hiring employees that align to your beliefs then....discrimination with a capital D?

What a company really means when it identifies itself as a Christian corporation, is that its board identifies itself with a Christian image and beliefs. Not the lower hierarchies. Message after all, trickles down, and the direction comes from above.

I don't see why this company should have to pay for some liberal woman's irresponsible sexual behavior. And if the company's beliefs are pro life, they shouldn't be forced to support abortion. I thought the motto was government (or who ever else) stay out of my bedroom. Hypocrisy.

Bty, I can't believe that pang hasn't weighed in on this yet. He will now that I have. xD

It's a gross misconception to think that only ****ty women will ever need contraceptives. Married women who do not want children will also need them. Married women who already feel they have enough children will need them. Anyway, what's so bad about risk-free pre-marital sex when a woman wants to? What about women who were raped? (Spousal rape rates are shockingly high, and make up the majority of rape cases). Notably, the contraceptives contested are only emergency contraceptives but....so? Does it matter? No. Emergency contraceptives will apply even more pertinently against the last group of women.

Furthermore, companies win, if their so hard nosed and think like corporations. No children = no maternity leave/benefits = continued productivity at the workplace.

The government should stay out of my bedroom.....that was applicable only to individuals. What lots of groups are angry about is not only the insufferable clutch of evangelicals shoving their beliefs down the throats of others, but also the fact that corporations now have a precedent whereby "closely held" companies can be counted more or less as individuals.

Conservatives have cast the battle as one for their own petty religious freedom, but for the rest of the public, they see it as a showdown over personal health choices. Anyway, most women also support the contraceptive mandate (And they after all, should be the ones deciding), so who are the corporations or opposition to frame it as "hypocrisy"?

Daft. Btw, stop dragging pang into the argument. You claim to be the victim, but don't seem to play that role very well.

I don't see why this company should have to pay for some liberal woman's irresponsible sexual behavior.

And if the company's beliefs are pro life, they shouldn't be forced to support abortion.

what you're saying is full of hypocrisy. Let me be clear, I, myself, am not a Christian, but I do respect and honor other peoples' beliefs and I will defend them to the death.

first you said this:

It's a gross misconception to think that only ****ty women will ever need contraceptives.

Anyway, what's so bad about risk-free pre-marital sex when a woman wants to?

What about women who were raped?

Notably, the contraceptives contested are only emergency contraceptives but....so? Does it matter? No. Emergency contraceptives will apply even more pertinently against the last group of women.

The government should stay out of my bedroom.....that was applicable only to individuals. What lots of groups are angry about is not only the insufferable clutch of evangelicals shoving their beliefs down the throats of others, but also the fact that corporations now have a precedent whereby "closely held" companies can be counted more or less as individuals.

Anyway, most women also support the contraceptive mandate (And they after all, should be the ones deciding)

That statement is a contradiction,

as I am pretty sure that, by definition, is what a **** is.

because all men are evil and will rape you, right? That's an over-generalization based on a prejudiced bias. Just because you have a vagina between your legs does not mean you're going to get raped.

and just because I have a penis between my legs does not mean I can't get raped.

Also, do you know how bad chemically and psychologically emergency contraceptives mess you up?