Hobby Lobby Birth Control Case at Supreme Court

Where is the imposition of religion on others? People are free to buy their own form of contraception if they choose. HL is not willing to pay for it. Am I missing something.

archer wrote: There is a difference between the free exercise of religion and imposing that religion upon others.

Refusing to pay for the choices others make is not imposing their beliefs on anyone.

agreed, PS ---- between this case and the baker case, I'm scratching my head, wondering whatever happened to freedom of association.

HL could simply say up front, "our health insurance policy does not cover 'x.'"
Then, It's up to an individual to decide whether or not to associate with HL.
(and customers can decide whether or not to patronize HL).

I don't happen to agree with their ideas - but maybe that should simply mean that I don't work for or patronize them.

This is how stupid it has gotten,

My opinion, no company should have to pay contraceptives for their employees. If an individual wants to have an active sex life, and worries about getting pregnant or in the male case getting the lady pregnant then that should be on the individual not the company.

This crap of forcing this on the corporations and forcing the health care insurance on individuals is over the top. If you don't buy it then you will have to pay a fine.

Then all these numbers come all of a sudden, yet nothing is proven yet.

How many have actually paid their premiums, how many already had insurance and lost it that ended up having to sign up for obamacare, and no I do not know if obamacare is good or bad, I have heard both and see both, but I think we should wait and get the real numbers.

LadyJazzer wrote: You have to question their motives even more now that it's come out that they own stock in the companies that manufacture abortion pills and devices. (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2)

Hmmmmm... Can you say hypocrisy?

Easily, since the "progressives" so regularly practice it. You are, of course, referring to the mutual funds held in the employee 401(k) plan that the Greens make matching payments into, correct?

That would be akin to calling the Greens hypocrites if one of their employees took their paycheck and used some of the funds to secure the services of a prostitute.

But hey, no one ever said that "progressives" were concerned with logic and reason - and they would be wrong if they did.

PrintSmith wrote:

LadyJazzer wrote: You have to question their motives even more now that it's come out that they own stock in the companies that manufacture abortion pills and devices. (Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, which makes the Plan B morning-after pill and ParaGard, a copper IUD, as well as Pfizer, the maker of the abortion-inducing drugs Cytotec and Prostin E2)

Hmmmmm... Can you say hypocrisy?

Easily, since the "progressives" so regularly practice it. You are, of course, referring to the mutual funds held in the employee 401(k) plan that the Greens make matching payments into, correct?

That would be akin to calling the Greens hypocrites if one of their employees took their paycheck and used some of the funds to secure the services of a prostitute.

But hey, no one ever said that "progressives" were concerned with logic and reason - and they would be wrong if they did.

That figures.

Who set up the 401(k) plan? The business owners. They should be able to manage it in a way that they tell the administrators of the 401(k)program what funds they are allowed to or not allowed to invest in. They do have the option to limit that.

Photo-fish wrote: Who set up the 401(k) plan? The business owners. They should be able to manage it in a way that they tell the administrators of the 401(k)program what funds they are allowed to or not allowed to invest in. They do have the option to limit that.

That is not how it works.

You can ask the company that manages your mutual funds to not invest in certian companies if you do not want them to. Hobby Lobby definately has the $$$ weight behind their business to be able to have their employees plans (which the owners set up) structured anywhay they want.

Photo-fish wrote: You can ask the company that manages your mutual funds to not invest in certian companies if you do not want them to. Hobby Lobby definately has the $$$ weight behind their business to be able to have their employees plans (which the owners set up) structured anywhay they want.

Sorry PF.
Funds manage trillions. Hobby lobby isn't even a pimple on their ass.

Which is probably the best argument that there is regarding the unsubstantiated charge leveled by archer and others that the Greens are attempting to force their religion onto others. The Greens have left that decision totally to the employee. They do not restrict where an employee may invest their money, nor do they withhold the matching contribution promised to the employee if the employee makes a decision to invest in a company which the Greens may not support. Bottom line is that the employee controls where their retirement funds are invested, not the Greens. Which makes my earlier statement valid, that attempting to label them as hypocrites based on how their employees decide to invest their retirement money is akin to attempting to label them hypocrites if one of their employees takes some of their salary to hire a prostitute. The charge is without any merit at all, but that won't stop others from attempting to do it anyway.