<p>^It’s a slippery slope, Flossy. We should all hope they don’t succeed in going down that road.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This all may be true, but it doesn’t change the fact that before the mandate, they could change their mind about what to cover and offer, and now they can’t. As Flossy wrote, now their right to follow their religious beliefs or not has been taken away from them. It is different now, after the ACA.</p>
<p>So, IOW, they were for them before they were against them. </p>
<p>I am just glad they have been exposed for what they really are. </p>
<p>But, Flossy, all the evidence indicates that they were NOT religiously opposed to providing insurance that covered contraceptives in the past. </p>
<p>No, I get it. But they were not forced to provide it in the past, either. The case is about whether the government can force someone to violate their religious beliefs and whether the reason for that force outweighs the impact of that violation. It’s about the principle, not the pills. </p>
<p>^Well if that’s true, then why are they claiming that they should be exempt from providing BC on religious grounds? Until today, after reading all this stuff, I was actually sympathetic to their situation (a little–I don’t agree in this case, but I get the whole church/state argument), but now I can see that their claims are complete BS. </p>
<p>If they want to sue the government based on the employer mandate in general, then fine. But THEY are making it about the pills. To claim now that they are religiously opposed to providing BC is a farce. </p>
<p>401k’s at most companies include money an employee sets aside from each paycheck to put into it, and companies then often match a certain percent of an employees contribution, usually up to 5% of the employees salary. Some employers have 401ks that simply are employee directed, they handle taking the money out of the paycheck and giving it to the fund manager without doing anything themselves. I think where the 401ks are invested is a fringe point, most companies hire a firm like Fidelity or whatever to handle the accounts, and it usually is the provider that decides what funds they offer,Hobby Lobby probably doesn’t look at who the funds invest in…</p>
<p>The key issue here is about can an employer decide what its health plan should carry and object to something on religious grounds if it is mandated. Contrary to popular belief, health care plans are regulated, there is long precedent for the federal government to set basic standards in health care (among other things, SCOTUS long ago ruled that insurance by its very nature was interstate, and therefore could be regulated). They mandate that plans cannot at hand reject forms of treatment that have proven to be effective (generally this is more about insurance companies trying to save money, but same thing for different reasons). I don’t agree with the law professor, in that this could be used by a Jehova’s witness in not covering blood transfusions, or a Christian scientist type deciding they would only pay to go to a Christian science center (no surgery, no antibiotics, etc)…are we to say ‘no, you can’t argue religious belief’ in this case, but accept a belief against birth control? Are we saying some beliefs are legitimate and others are not? With a first amendment decision like this, it does open a floodgate, for the reason that the courts or government cannot decide which faith beliefs are protected and which are not, so if they rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, you could very well see such exemptions. </p>
<p>And I disagree with the professor, this could be expanded and not in good ways. If they argue that a government mandate on health insurance is voided by religious belief, why wouldn’t they do the same thing with other things? Why couldn’t the BAC head of Hobby Lobby not hire Jews or Muslims? Why should a Catholic be allowed to discriminate against gays? More importantly, if a company has non discrimination policies, what is to stop some born again Christian arguing that he can discriminate against ‘sinners’ (usually gay people), because his religious belief outweighs the companies policy?</p>
<p>And yes, there also is the question about should an employers beliefs, which will often differ with their employees, allow them to in effect force their beliefs on others? It is not easy, and unless in the Hobby Lobby case (if decided in favor of Hobby Lobby) says this decision is limited strictly to this one case with contraception, it could be used as broad precedent to allow those so inclined to use the religious freedom act to discriminate and that is scary. Once upon a time segregationists used the right of 'free association" to discriminate, this could well end up being a legally sanctified way to do so. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That may be true, but Constitutional challenges can be made based upon artificially created scenarios. Like, maybe I didn’t really want to sit in the front of the bus, or marry my girlfriend (I’m female), or burn a flag, but I did it anyway, to bring the issue to the courts.</p>
<p>^EXCEPT in those cases there isn’t a whole body of evidence to demonstrate they were not fighting on behalf of long-held moral convictions. </p>
<p>I am beyond disappointed to learn that their motivations are political (which is OK) and not religious. </p>
<p>“I think where the 401ks are invested is a fringe point, most companies hire a firm like Fidelity or whatever to handle the accounts, and it usually is the provider that decides what funds they offer,Hobby Lobby probably doesn’t look at who the funds invest in…”</p>
<p>Of course they know what funds are being offered in their 401K plan. It wouldn’t surprise me if the corporate officers are invested in the companies 401K plan, also - though I can’t prove that. However, the corporation has a fiduciary responsibility under ERISA to know what is in the plan they offer their employees. </p>
<p>There are several companies (The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund for example) which screen out stocks religious people might find objectionable such as companies that manufacture abortion drugs, support Planned Parenthood, or engage in embryonic stem cell research. That such a deeply religious corporation, as Hobby Lobby purports to be, didn’t avail themselves of investment funds such as those I just mentioned I find very perplexing. </p>
<p>This case was manufactured by The Becket Fund and Hobby Lobby looked like a good company they could use to further their cause. </p>
<p>It seems to me the most equitable result would be 1) let Hobby Lobby and similar closely-held corporations be exempt on religious grounds, and therefore be allowed to refuse to include BC in their health benefit plans; and 2) those employers who choose not to be subject to the ACA on religious grounds are likewise exempt from having their contributions to their health plans tax deductible.</p>
<p>After all, if they don’t want to be subject to the law based on religious grounds, why should we, as taxpayers, subsidize their religious choices?</p>
<p>^When pigs fly. </p>
<p>At least two justices asked about kosher/hallal butchers. I don’t know what the response was but my take is that you can’t ban that method of slaughter but you might be able to craft a law that prevents corporations from doing this. That is, let’s say the US goes the way of at least parts of Europe and requires stunning before killing. That isn’t acceptable in kosher/hallal butchery so it would clearly be an imposition on the ability of the devout to exist in America … if they banned butchers. If they required corporations to use stunning, then kosher/hallal meat would still be available from other butchers, meaning partnerships and proprietors. The practice isn’t banned just the form in which it can be done.</p>
<p>My reasoning, which I doubt the Court will adopt, is that we have established a right by the State to infringe on rights in the name of regulation for good. That is particularly true with abortion. Whatever one feels about it, it is Constitutional now and yet the courts have allowed many restrictions - like requiring admitting privileges - that have the effect of reducing the availability of abortions. That would be the same as reducing the availability of kosher/hallal meat by requiring corporate butchers to stun animals first. It makes it harder to get but doesn’t make it incredibly hard - not as hard as it is to get an abortion in parts of Texas now - or impossible because you can bring in kosher/hallal meat from butchers who aren’t required to stun first.</p>
<p>Form matters to me. Legally, a corporation is treated as a separate entity. That’s why it exists: to reduce the connection between the owners of the corporation and the corporation itself, thus insulating the owners from lawsuits. So if Hobby Lobby discriminates and we say the religious beliefs of the owners are carried through to the corporation, then why exactly should the corporate form protect the owners of Hobby Lobby at all? If the corporation discriminates, it does so because the owners decide it should - and that’s a direct response to those who refer to “closely held corporation”. There is no special limit for big or little companies. If the owners’ beliefs are the corporation’s beliefs, then we’ve changed the nature of the corporate form of existence.</p>
<p>I see this as being very different from free speech. Why? Because a corporation has business interests, meaning it sells goods and services and thus it has an interest of its own in protecting and advancing its business interests. Hobby Lobby and other non-religious employers are in the business of selling stuff. These companies should have the right to lobby and buy ads and the like to help protect and grow their ability to sell stuff. But holding a religious belief is not the same as selling stuff. Holding a religious belief is the nature of a religious organization, notably a church or church-affiliated entity like a non-profit hospital operated by the Catholic Church. Holding religious beliefs doesn’t advance the selling of paper goods for the 4th of July or squirt guns for summer or bags of ice melt and shovels in winter. </p>
<p>Closed per CCs TOS regarding Politics, Religion, etc."</p>
<p><a href=“https://auth.collegeconfidential.com/module.php/hobsonspolicies/policy.php?policy=tos”>https://auth.collegeconfidential.com/module.php/hobsonspolicies/policy.php?policy=tos</a></p>
<p>
</p>