Hobby Lobby decision

I am confused on where you stand on this Daryl.

As long as we have an employer-centered health care system, then it means that an employer's "beliefs" about health care need to be irrelevant.  Employer beliefs shouldn't even factor into the equation.  No, you don't get to have "beliefs" when you're providing a fundamental human right to your employees.  A company's "beliefs" shouldn't really be able to dictate whether they provide their employees with fundamental human rights, or not. 

Employer-centered health care puts us in a position where employers are able to dictate the kinds of health care their employees have access to -- and health care is a fundamental human right. Since health care is such a fundamental human right, an employer's beliefs should never take priority over an employee's access to health care. It's pretty fucked-up that we live in a world where an employer's precious little "beliefs" are prioritized over something as fundamental as access to health care.

And, it's important to realize that this actually is a "health care" issue. We aren't talking about enabling women to be sluts; we're talking about access to legitimate medicine to treat legitimate (and potentially very serious) medical disorders. Women don't use hormonal birth control pills just to prevent pregnancy! Hormonal birth control bills are used to treat a variety of gynaecological disorders - for example, endometriosis is a cripplingly-painful condition generally treated with hormonal birth control pills. Uterine fibroid tumors, also very painful, are generally treated with hormonal birth control. I, personally, have a mild case of polycystic ovarian syndrome, and I need to take birth control pills each month so my ovaries won't break out WITH HUNDREDS OF PAINFUL SORES. It's a mistake to think that birth control pills only exist to enable women to be sluts. Birth control pills can powerfully affect a woman's reproductive system, which means that they can powerfully treat and cure a variety of extremely painful (and potentially very serious) medical issues.

If I were a Hobby Lobby employee, is it right that I suffer with ovaries covered in excruciating sores just so Hobby Lobby won't have to have their precious, precious, precious beliefs trampled on?

The fact that the courts feel that Hobby Lobby's "beliefs" trump A HUMAN BEING'S ACCESS TO MEDICINE is sickening and totally fucked up.  Welcome to America, the land where companies are people and women aren't!  A company's beliefs are to be treasured and respected, but if you're a woman with polycystic ovaries who happens to work for such a company -- TOUGH SHIT, BITCH!  SUFFER WITH THOSE CYSTS IN AGONY, OR FIND A NEW JOB!   Hooray, isn't America great?  

Darryl, you do tend to lack compassion for other people, so the fact that there are probably Hobby Lobby employees who can no longer afford to treat their painful medical conditions is probably "no big deal to you" because, of course, another person's suffering is "no big deal." It's only "a big deal" when you're the person who's hurting and suffering, right?

So Darryl, how would you feel if your testicles broke out in excruciating sores every month, and you were not able to pay for the only medicine that could ease the pain and treat your condition?

Darryl, what if you asked your employer to help you get medicine to cure your horribly agonizing and cyst-covered testes, and then your boss was like "Fuck you, Darryl.  If you want any medicine for that, go and find a new job!"   As I recall, you were on the unemployment dole for quite a long while and it took you quite a long time to find new work.  Would quitting and finding a new job be a feasible option for you in this scenario, if you were the one who needed medicine to treat a horribly painful problem with your man-parts?  Don't you think it's a little heartless to tell someone who is suffering to "find a new job" if they just want some MEDICINE??

Darryl, let me ask you another question? Should a company be allowed to deny cancer treatment to a cancer stricken employee if it "violates their beliefs?" Should a company deny antibiotics or vaccines to employees if it "violates their beliefs?" Should a company be allowed to deny someone a heart transplant or dialysis or anything else if they don't believe in that?

What if a company was hell-bent opposed to all Western Medicine, and insisted that all employees treat their medical woes with shamanistic chanting and herbs? If they truly believed that cancer should be cured with shamanistic medicine and essential oils, should they legally be allowed to deny chemotherapy treatment and radiation to all their employees?

Where do you draw the line? At what point should a company be obligated to pay for health care? Why should a company be made to pay for anything at all? If a company simply doesn't want to pay for a sick employee's chemo, then why on earth should they? How do you decide which "beliefs" should be honored and which "beliefs" shouldn't be?


It's a little scary, because it seems like this is largely based on a very particular set of "religious" beliefs (namely, "Christian" beliefs) "Religion" has no place in the court system, or the government, or our laws. A collection of mythologies and fairytales is a pretty poor basis for running a society.

The whole Hobby Lobby thing is really disgusting, but it's just one more example of why we really need to get away from this employer-centered health care system. If we Americans all had something like the NHS in England, this would've been a nonissue, as "corporate beliefs" wouldn't have been a factor in health care access at all.



This is a very poorly-reasoned argument, and here's why:

If employers were the primary providers of food and rent and electricity, yes, it'd be right to force them to pay for those things.  Like medicine, food and shelter and heat are all are fundamental human rights.   But, thankfully, we don't leave food and rent and electric bills in the hands of employers.  We do, however, leave health care in the hands of employers.   If we're going to honor an employer's beliefs, then we need to take health care out of their control.  This is why we need to have socialized, public health care....but as long as employers generally pay for health care, then employers really do have a moral obligation to put their beliefs aside for the sake of an employee's access to medicine.   That's the flaw in your reasoning.  "Should employers be forced to pay for rent?" is a poor analogy to use here,  because employers are not generally expected to pay rent. 

Your entire argument is bunk. First of all, health care is not a human right. Companies don't have to provide health care (at least didn't before Obamacare and they still don't if they want to pay the fine instead) Hobby Lobby does cover birth control. It's only 4 specific types of birth control they don't cover because they cause an abortion. If someone wants those 4 specific types of birth control, they can go to the local walmart and pay for them. I had a health care plan that didn't cover my insulin. What's more important? Pills to let you have fun without consequences or real medicine for diabetes? So, I had to spend almost $100 a month for my insulin. I had to make choices...what's more important? Going to an Aerosmith concert or getting my insulin? 

There is no Constitutional right to health care. It's not there. Freedom of religion (not freedom from religion) is in the Constitution. The government cannot force me to violate my religious beliefs just because I choose to open a business. You have a right to not like that, you have a right not to patronize my company. You have a right not to work for me. But you don't have a right to violate my religious liberty. 

Its nuts they have to wait more than a few weeks to get an appointment, let alone everyone accepting the "faked" few months to get an appointment and everyone being aware.