No, the key issue here is that the SC sided with a corporation instead of real "persons" and based the decision on the notion that if a corporation believes a false thing it is still a belief that trumps the reality of people working for that corporation. And you are completely too caught up in the rationalizations of this decision to see the absurdity of the reasoning. Anytime you have to go way out of your way to say that a decision doesn't apply to other things, you know it is a political/ideological decision and not a legal one. This is such a horrific mishmash of wingnut thought, abortion politics, and corporate enabling that it will be with us for a long while and likely take a bunch of decisions over years to straighten out or hopefully do away with.
You not believing something doesn't make it false. Corporate personhood is not a new concept either and it was not established by this court. This "activist" Republican court majority just issued a ruling based on the legal precedent of corporate personhood and the application of law passed by democrats in the 1990s.
I thought the conservatives want to reduce abortion. There is nothing else that reduces abortion rate like contraceptives.
The contraceptives in question are ones used as abortive agents. (Although the IUD for example can be preventive as well.) The idea that Hobby Lobby is against contraceptives in general is a myth. The plan covered almost all types of abortion and will continue to cover all but 4 at their expense.
Hobby Lobby Invested In Numerous Abortion And Contraception Products While Claiming Religious Objection http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickung...-products-while-claiming-religious-objection/
This is a silly argument. A 401(k) plan is an employee driven retirement account. The company as a fiduciary has a legal obligation to put the best interests of the employees first in terms of fund options, pricing, etc.
forget Hobby Lobby.. Still trying to figure out why we should provide contraception to anyone regardless of religion. Is it like new govt cheese or something?
So what? Even if we assume that you're correct that htey couldn't limit the choices...it could just not offer one if it wanted to. I guess religious freedom of expression doesn't matter/isn't worth the challenge when you're talking about statutes other than PPACA
You really think it makes them hypocrite to offer a 401(k) plan where their employees choose investments that the owner doesn't like? Be serious Sam and not snarky.
Several Issues about this that bother me 1. I dislike the ruling because it continues this ridiculous notion that corporations are people and should have similar . . and most case MORE rights than people. 2. I have heard people bemoan that corporations have power over women's private medical what have you. Well the illusion of choice is key to me. Because they already influence you which doctor you can see. . .i.e. In Network versus Out of network etc. how is this different? Also . . .from what I read they did not stop all contraceptives but one in particular. Again like being IN NETWORK versus OUT OF NETWORK the company simply limited your medical options which they have been doing for ever. 3. I am disturbed by the distraction that WELL THEY COVER VIAGRA. The equalization of contraceptives to impotence would be like me say SINCE THEY DON'T PROVIDE CONDOMS THEY SHOULD NOT COVER INFERTILITY Apples and Oranges comparison that so many jump on as a weapon of mass distraction. The reality is they provide more contraception for women then men. http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...aception-coverage-its-employees-deroy-murdock While there maybe a WAR ON WOMEN - I am unsure if Hobby Lobby is the head General of it. Rocket River
Why wouldn't the owner not want to interfere in this area of his employee's lives as well? If you're a true pro lifer and all life is sacred, why not take all the shots you can? That's the problem when you take the "every sperm is sacred because all life is sacred" approach, the opportunities for hypocrisy are immense, and then you just end up making arbitrary calls. Birth control pills bad, death penalty good, abortion bad, cutting welfare benefits & headstart programs good/wars abroad good - it becomes meaningless becaues you're not pro-life, you're pro right wing politics, and that's all this is here too.
Then those owners will have no problem with folks like us never shopping there again, and I'm sure we aren't the only people feeling the same way.
Because it isn't the employer's money, it is the employee's money. They have a fiduciary responsibility that prohibits them from meddling in their employees investments. Most investment advisers would tell business owners/management not to even talk to employees about their 401(k) choices to avoid any fiduciary issues. They could try to pick funds that didn't invest in any products in their offerings, but there would be more fiduciary issues at play there if they were denying their employees access to sound investments because of personal beliefs. Please remember that a 401(k) is not the employer's money. Even the match (if there is one) is not their money, it is the employee's money. That's a weird paragraph to me. I don't really see how it relates to the issue at hand. I also don't see the hypocrisy between thinking aborting an innocent life is wrong but the state taking the life of a guilty person is ok. I'm against both, but I don't think hypocrisy in being against one but not the other.
The very best way to hold down the cost of government supplied social services would be free contraception. I'm actually sort of surprised that conservatives don't promote this .... less poors. Go to Walgreens, sign in, get 90 condoms or 90 days of birth control pills. And anybody, all 300 million of us. cheap, easy.
So basically, morality can be saved and religion is protected by privity of contract via third parties? This is great - so hobby lobby uses a third party administrator who reimburses employees, that way they don't pay for anything - is this what happened? Is this what Hobby Lobby requested?
