<p>
</p>
<p>How so? By your logic, all of an employee’s personal expenses that Hobby Lobby doesn’t pay for amounts to telling employees how to spend their own money.</p>
<p>If Hobby Lobby covers birth control in their formulary, as they should, then it is a covered benefit of their healthcare plan. If they exclude it, then they are essentially telling employees that this is a personal expense. They are not telling them that they have to purchase it, but if they want what should be a covered benefit, they have to pay personally. If they exclude birth control, IMO they should exclude coverage for erectile dysfunction.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>If Hobby Lobby doesn’t pay for automatic weapons and bongful of pot, then they are forcing their employees to buy them.</p>
<p>Gotta love those strawman arguments.</p>
<p>The government’s argument was that they could simply drop health insurance altogether and pay the fine. So the government’s argument would have had the employee’s paying all of their health expenses. </p>
<p>Those of you who are against Hobby Lobby are fine with the government telling people how to spend their money, that is, you must buy health insurance and the type of health insurance we tell you to buy.</p>
<p>Well, this is all very amusing but it does slightly miss the point. They are challenging the authority of the government to impose the BC mandate on the grounds of religious freedom. My guess is the court will find another way to get the fed to deliver the pills. We’ll see.</p>
<p>What was the outcome when the Catholic church tried this? I forget.</p>
<p>** Ah wait. Found this. How timely <a href=“Supreme Court Declines Catholic Groups’ Bypass on Contraceptives Benefit”>http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2014/04/01/324923.htm</a></p>
<p>The headline is a little misleading. They essentially came up with a temporary compromise.</p>
<p>I haven’t paid close attention to this case but now I’m curious. Is it all birth control HL opposes or is it just Plan B? </p>
<p>I wonder if their opinion on BC would change if we had a prescription method used by men? They may not mean to discriminate against women, but that’s what happens at the end of the day.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Funny. But a non sequitur in this case. Hobby Lobby people seem like they would support/pay for creating life by <em>natural</em> means. (i.e. functioning gonads). </p>
<p>It’s 4 out 20 methods that they don’t want to fund. Nothing is mandated for men. Perhaps, they would also object to paying for vasectomies but that’s not required under the law so there is nothing to oppose.</p>
<p>“Matching funds are the property of the employee, who chooses where to invest them.”</p>
<p>The funds invested are the property of the employee after they are in the 401K, but the money to match the funds doesn’t come out of nowhere. It comes from the company. </p>
<p>Nothing is forcing the company to put those mutual funds into the companies 401K plan. The employees don’t pick what mutual funds are available to invest in. The company does - or the company they pay to set up the plan. Hobby Lobby could have requested that no mutual fund offered in their company’s 401k plan include those companies. There are mutual funds specially for “religious” minded companies. They could have chosen those funds - but they didn’t. </p>
<p>That’s all true Emily. but it has nothing to do with this case. </p>
<p>“I haven’t paid close attention to this case but now I’m curious. Is it all birth control HL opposes or is it just Plan B?”</p>
<p>4 different birth control methods, including Plan B. </p>
<p>But they had no problem covering the 4 they have now excluded prior to 2013 and the mandate. Fancy that. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of the money an employee invests in a 401(k) comes from the company.</p>
<p>I guess I don’t understand what you are getting at. You want Hobby Lobby to limit what its employees do with all money that comes from their earnings? Or are you saying that because there are companies on the investment list that Hobby Lobby offers its employees to spend <em>their</em> money on, that makes them a hypocrite about not wanting to directly pay for birth control?</p>
<p>I am saying they are hypocrites (well actually liars, tbh) for having companies in their corporations 401K plan that make the products which they say, because of the “deeply held religion of the corporation” is a violation of their first amendment rights to offer it in their corporations health insurance plan. </p>
<p>They didn’t give a hoot about any of this before The Becket Fund came a calling. </p>
<p>Not only do they have those companies included in their 401K plan but they covered all 4 of those BC products prior to 2013. </p>
<p>Religious beliefs my ass. </p>
<p>There was no violation of their rights before the mandate. The court case is a reaction. Probably, one of many</p>
<p><a href=“Column: Hobby Lobby: It's the principle”>Column: Hobby Lobby: It's the principle;
<p><a href=“http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/2014-03-31/religious-liberty-claim-well-within-realm-reason.html”>http://www.news-gazette.com/opinion/columns/2014-03-31/religious-liberty-claim-well-within-realm-reason.html</a></p>
<p>The court case is based on bs. Hobby Lobby didn’t care one wit about any of those things prior to 2013. If they did, they wouldn’t have had those forms of birth control covered under their previous insurance. They also wouldn’t have had the mutual funds who have those companies in them as an option in their corporations 401K plan. </p>
<p>They are frauds. </p>
<p>Hobby Lobby’s owners don’t want the government interfering with their religious beliefs. On the other hand, aren’t they imposing their religious beliefs on their employees by refusing to pay for contraceptives?</p>
<p>No, because if the government goal is to get free contraceptives into the hands of every woman there are many ways of doing it that don’t involve infringing on the religious freedoms of their employers. </p>