Boycott Hobby Lobby: Trumping Women's Rights

[Quintessence]

In most cases, I'm an advocate of religious freedoms in my country. I don't like trends and rulings that banish such an important component of our lives and identities from the public square, because I favor an environment where religious pluralism is allowed to flourish instead of sole endorsement of the "religion" of secularism or freedom from religion. Finding that balance between neither endorsing nor denying is difficult, and has been a constant struggle in my country.

But as much as I support freedom of religion, basic human rights should always, in all cases, trump that. Unfortunately, a recent Supreme Court decision did exactly the opposite:

The US Supreme Court has ruled a Christian-owned company can claim a religious exemption to a law requiring employers to pay for their workers' contraception.

The owners of craft chain Hobby Lobby and others argued the mandate in President Barack Obama's healthcare law violated their religious beliefs.

The 5-4 decision applies only to "closely held" companies.

The court said the law offered other ways to ensure access to contraception.

*full story here*

I was never a fan of Hobby Lobby before, but now I will absolutely not give them any of my patronage and encourage the rest of you to do the same. I want to see this company explode in flames and burn to the ground with bankruptcy for bringing this kind of $#@% to my country.

I get that some of you Christians are against contraceptives and abortion. Fine. I respect that, and if you don't like it, don't do it. If your employee benefits package and health care covers it and you don't believe in it, then don't use it. But depriving other people of health insurance coverage for these things because you happen to disagree with it is a violation of basic human rights. I'm sorry, but it is. The only situation where I would agree with this is if it weren't illegal to hire and fire on the basis of religion - if you could ensure that absolutely everybody who works for you agrees with your company's religious beliefs. Otherwise? I'm sorry, it's total $#@%. Yes, contraceptives are available elsewhere. No, that doesn't excuse denying coverages to employees who not only have no problem with contraceptives, but their religion might consider it the ethically responsible thing to do.

I shudder to think of how this ruling will get abused for other things.

 

[bobhikes]

In most cases, I'm an advocate of religious freedoms in my country. I don't like trends and rulings that banish such an important component of our lives and identities from the public square, because I favor an environment where religious pluralism is allowed to flourish instead of sole endorsement of the "religion" of secularism or freedom from religion. Finding that balance between neither endorsing nor denying is difficult, and has been a constant struggle in my country.

But as much as I support freedom of religion, basic human rights should always, in all cases, trump that. Unfortunately, a recent Supreme Court decision did exactly the opposite:


*full story here*

I was never a fan of Hobby Lobby before, but now I will absolutely not give them any of my patronage and encourage the rest of you to do the same. I want to see this company explode in flames and burn to the ground with bankruptcy for bringing this kind of $#@% to my country.

I get that some of you Christians are against contraceptives and abortion. Fine. I respect that, and if you don't like it, don't do it. If your employee benefits package and health care covers it and you don't believe in it, then don't use it. But depriving other people of health insurance coverage for these things because you happen to disagree with it is a violation of basic human rights. I'm sorry, but it is. The only situation where I would agree with this is if it weren't illegal to hire and fire on the basis of religion - if you could ensure that absolutely everybody who works for you agrees with your company's religious beliefs. Otherwise? I'm sorry, it's total $#@%. Yes, contraceptives are available elsewhere. No, that doesn't excuse denying coverages to employees who not only have no problem with contraceptives, but their religion might consider it the ethically responsible thing to do.

I shudder to think of how this ruling will get abused for other things.

I'm against paying for contraceptives across the board you are not required to have sex. I'm atheist agnostic. I also find it wrong that only women get free or insurance paid contraceptives. Males are not allowed to put it on their insurance or at least get a tax write off. Isn't sex as important to men as to woman. Perhaps they would use condoms more often if they didn't have to pay for them.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm against paying for contraceptives across the board you are not required to have sex.

That sounds like a very weak argument to me. You're not "required" to play in sports and break a leg during practice either, but people will do it anyway. And you're certainly not required to smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer, but people will do it anyway. And treatments for both would be covered. It's not a matter of a certain behavior being "required" or not.

I also find it wrong that only women get free or insurance paid contraceptives. Males are not allowed to put it on their insurance or at least get a tax write off. Isn't sex as important to men as to woman. Perhaps they would use condoms more often if they didn't have to pay for them.

Yeah, that's a separate issue. Restricting access to contraceptives for the one sex that routinely has it, however, certainly isn't going to help things.

 

[Sees]

I thought it was only school children who received free contraceptives. I feel so out of touch...

 

[Tarheeler]

I shudder to think of how this ruling will get abused for other things.

That's what my wife and I were talking about when we first the ruling. Exemptions for blood transfusions? Organ transplants? Vaccinations? Certain employees who's lifestyles are against an employer's religious beliefs?

 

[Quintessence]

That's what my wife and I were talking about when we first the ruling. Exemptions for blood transfusions? Organ transplants? Vaccinations? Certain employees who's lifestyles are against an employer's religious beliefs?

It opens the door for weaseling out of a lot of things that are wise for the greater public good. And given a certain relatively large demographic in my country seems to like to weasel out of things that are good for the general public or the long-term future, it makes me nervous.

 

[bobhikes]

That sounds like a very weak argument to me. You're not "required" to play in sports and break a leg during practice either, but people will do it anyway. And you're certainly not required to smoke cigarettes and get lung cancer, but people will do it anyway. And treatments for both would be covered. It's not a matter of a certain behavior being "required" or not.



Yeah, that's a separate issue. Restricting access to contraceptives for the one sex that routinely has it, however, certainly isn't going to help things.

Hurting your self is not equal to sexing yourself and we don't pay for cigarettes and have made the manufacturers pony up a lot of money for cancer. So that would equal to people pony up their fair share for the dangers of sex. What exactly are the dangers of sex? Is pregnancy a danger or a goal?

 

[Amechania]

I thought it was only school children who received free contraceptives. I feel so out of touch...

Yes school children, and the elderly.

 

[TheScholar]

I'm against this, but not on the grounds of Abortion or Contraceptives or sex. Birth control has uses outside of preventing pregnancy. It's used to help treat PCOS and other disorders. It could, in effect, open the door hurt some women with these disorders in the long run.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

So you'd rather see the employees lose their jobs instead of have jobs at a company whose health plan doesn't cover birth control?

Anyway, I can't bring myself to sympathize with your stance since most health insurance doesn't cover hormone therapy or surgeries for transsexual people (which are medically necessary for the treatment thereof). So I view getting uppity over your health care plan not covering the pill so you can bang without getting knocked up as rather silly. Sorry, but I have more important things on my mind. Condoms don't cost that much.

(My Medicaid plan does not cover my testosterone prescription, but I'd rather have health insurance than not have it at all. I guess I should boycott the government, then?)

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I admit that laziness engulfs me. Is Hobby Lobby a public organization or a private one?

Besides, I never heard of it before so either way I'm boycotting it lol

 

[metis]

The SCOTUS ruling didn't surprise me since the delusional five justices think that a corporation is a person, as we saw in the Citizens United decision.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

So you'd rather see the employees lose their jobs instead of have jobs at a company whose health plan doesn't cover birth control?

Very great point!

 

[Koldo]

But depriving other people of health insurance coverage for these things because you happen to disagree with it is a violation of basic human rights. I'm sorry, but it is.

The concept of not being forced to do something if it goes against your religion ( or conscience ) has been around for quite a while. I believe it has been interpreted as an extension to our freedom of thought right ( i would appreciate if someone could either confirm or offer evidence to the contrary ).

The problem, as I see it, is not that Hobby Lobby doesn't want to provide its employees with contraception. That's to be expected from some companies. The problem is that the supreme court ruled on its favour. It's the supreme court that gets to determine what rights take precedence on each situation.

Now, how do we boycott the supreme court? :cover:

 

[Iti oj]

So you'd rather see the employees lose their jobs instead of have jobs at a company whose health plan doesn't cover birth control?

Anyway, I can't bring myself to sympathize with your stance since most health insurance doesn't cover hormone therapy or surgeries for transsexual people (which are medically necessary for the treatment thereof). So I view getting uppity over your health care plan not covering the pill so you can bang without getting knocked up as rather silly. Sorry, but I have more important things on my mind. Condoms don't cost that much.

(My Medicaid plan does not cover my testosterone prescription, but I'd rather have health insurance than not have it at all. I guess I should boycott the government, then?)

Basically you get the short end of the stick so **** every one else? Real cool bro.

 

[Koldo]

Basically you get the short end of the stick so **** every one else? Real cool bro.

That's not what he said.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Basically you get the short end of the stick so **** every one else? Real cool bro.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's a bad idea to call for a boycott which may end up hurting the employees the most because if they lose profits, it may lead to them laying off employees. The last thing we need right now is another company going bankrupt!

Secondly, I was saying that it's better to have health insurance at all rather than none at all. My health insurance doesn't cover my testosterone prescription, which is medically necessary for me, but I'm not going to boycott the state government over it.

 

[YmirGF]

The SCOTUS ruling didn't surprise me since the delusional five justices think that a corporation is a person, as we saw in the Citizens United decision.

Indeed. Delusional people always make it up the ranks, all the way to the Supreme Court of your land... oddly, they are probably some of the sanest people in your government. Heck, they all were competent enough to withstand their Senate confirmation hearings. But... I guess that doesn't matter...

In regards to the OP, no, I do not support a boycott over this ruling.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that it's a bad idea to call for a boycott which may end up hurting the employees the most because if they lose profits, it may lead to them laying off employees. The last thing we need right now is another company going bankrupt!

Pffft. It's not like they built the company themselves.


Poor Sandra Fluke must be suicidal with grief... :sad4:

 

[crossfire]

So you'd rather see the employees lose their jobs instead of have jobs at a company whose health plan doesn't cover birth control?

Anyway, I can't bring myself to sympathize with your stance since most health insurance doesn't cover hormone therapy or surgeries for transsexual people (which are medically necessary for the treatment thereof). So I view getting uppity over your health care plan not covering the pill so you can bang without getting knocked up as rather silly. Sorry, but I have more important things on my mind. Condoms don't cost that much.

(My Medicaid plan does not cover my testosterone prescription, but I'd rather have health insurance than not have it at all. I guess I should boycott the government, then?)

Alright, so what if the health plan provided by your employer normally covered hormone therapy and surgery for transsexual people, but your employer "opted out" of that coverage because they didn't want you to use it and claimed "religious reasons" for opting out of it?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Alright, so what if the health plan provided by your employer normally covered hormone therapy and surgery for transsexual people, but your employer "opted out" of that coverage because they didn't want you to use it and claimed "religious reasons" for opting out of it?

Then I'd either pay for it out of pocket or get another insurance plan. Would you expect me to do?