Hobby Lobby contraception case going to Supreme Court

[talisman]

For fucks sake, Frost. You act like a fucking 5 year old sometimes.

[Baron Von Crowder]

They aren't making anyone go to church, or profess specific beliefs to work there.

Neither is hobby lobby?

[YALE]

Neither is hobby lobby?

If they cite religious reasons for declining to pay for specific medical care, that would be forcing that employee to adhere to their religious beliefs.

[71chevellejohn]

Is Hobby Lobby actually writing the individual checks for their employees healthcare or do they have an insurance company that provides their health benefits?

[Baron Von Crowder]

If they cite religious reasons for declining to pay for specific medical care, that would be forcing that employee to adhere to their religious beliefs.

Not really bro. They arent saying you as an employee cant have these types of birth control, they are saying that they wont pay for it.

How is this different than companies charging employees more for health coverage for being a smoker, or not employing them altogether? Nobody has a problem with that.

[talisman]

Smoking is a choice. Being female isn't.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Smoking is a choice. Being female isn't.

contraception isnt a choice?

[talisman]

contraception isnt a choice?

Health Insurance provides cigarettes?

[YALE]

Not really bro. They arent saying you as an employee cant have these types of birth control, they are saying that they wont pay for it.

How is this different than companies charging employees more for health coverage for being a smoker, or not employing them altogether? Nobody has a problem with that.

Easy. There's a linked cost increase to smoking, and secondhand smoking, and other things like physical fitness and obesity. They can't make you refrain from those, but they can let you foot the bill for them. Before you go jumping ahead, and saying paying for birth control is a corollary cost, it's actually a savings, as deferring the cost of funding an employee's birth is worth paying for birth control as long as possible. Again, I don't have a problem with them challenging the law. I have a problem with the way they're doing it.

[Chili]

If they cite religious reasons for declining to pay for specific medical care, that would be forcing that employee to adhere to their religious beliefs.

I disagree. As was mentioned, they would not be precluded from going out and buying it on their own. They just don't want to pay for it.

Forcing them to adhere would be to say that they banned employees from using those types of BC altogether. Similar to how some companies forbid their employees from smoking.

IMO, the discrimination angle is the real crux here. If your actions disproportionately impact one protected class over others, even if unintentional, it can generally be considered discrimination.

I can kind kind of see both sides on this one. At least from a moral and ethical viewpoint.

[Baron Von Crowder]

Health Insurance provides cigarettes?

No, but employer contribution decreases.

Easy. There's a linked cost increase to smoking, and secondhand smoking, and other things like physical fitness and obesity. They can't make you refrain from those, but they can let you foot the bill for them. Before you go jumping ahead, and saying paying for birth control is a corollary cost, it's actually a savings, as deferring the cost of funding an employee's birth is worth paying for birth control as long as possible. Again, I don't have a problem with them challenging the law. I have a problem with the way they're doing it.

Would you be ok with it if H-L was to decrease employer contribution like other companies have for the smoking thing? The ACA says they cant.

[YALE]

No, but employer contribution decreases.


Would you be ok with it if H-L was to decrease employer contribution like other companies have for the smoking thing? The ACA says they cant.

If they can't, they can't. If they want to mount a legal challenge, fine, but they should comply until it's resolved.

[Sean88gt]

If the company is paying for it, why shouldn't they have some say about it? If the employees don't like it, they have the option to leave.

[Baron Von Crowder]

If the company is paying for it, why shouldn't they have some say about it? If the employees don't like it, they have the option to leave.

Or pay for it themselves, too.

[Baron Von Crowder]

If they can't, they can't. If they want to mount a legal challenge, fine, but they should comply until it's resolved.

hasnt it been extended 4-5 times now?