Recently SCOTUS made a decision in the Hobby Lobby case regarding religious freedom. I’m all for religious freedom, it’s the cornerstone of American culture.
The thing that concerns me here is that it feels like the decision says that a Corporation’s religious right’s somehow outweighs the individual’s.
Why should the owner of Hobby Lobby decide that his religious belief’s can determine the kind of health care decisions an employee might chose to make? I understand, he doesn’t believe in X and therefore Y … but how does providing insurance (whether it covers something you believe in or not) to employees force you to violate your own religious beliefs? By paying money? I don’t buy that. By entering into the capitalist bullshit retail world, he’s likely given up that argument three times by 10 every day.
We all participate in parts of the social contract that we don’t necessarily agree with, it’s part of the deal of society. I grew up watching the KKK march - and we let them, not because we agree but because we all agree in the First Amendment. Not just when it applies to us, but for everyone.
So, really - how does providing insurance that might cover things that you don’t agree with violate your own religious beliefs if you don’t participate in that action yourself?
Why do we all care so much what everyone else does? If the owner doesn’t believe in abortion or contraception, bully for him. But isn’t that his own thing? Why does that have to be an issue that his employee’s now have to deal with? I
It’s control. I don’t buy for a second it’s really about religious freedom. It’s control and party politics bullshit.
We’ve determined, as a society to provide health care as a benefit of full time employment - as health seems to be pursuant to the life part of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. So. Why is it okay that this dude has so much control over what everyone in his employment is doing with their own bodies? And we’re all like, yeah - that’s right, he shouldn’t have to pay. But he’s paying a portion of an overall coverage and the individuals pay a portion … and let me get back to this.
I mean Rush would say, we shouldn’t be paying for people to have sex. (God, apparently, doesn’t like sex … except when he does.) Don’t we pay for the results of sex all the time? Don’t we pay for birth and then for the insurance of dependents and on and on and on.
What if there were some religion 10 years from now that held a central tenant that we are overpopulating the Earth and we shouldn’t have babies? Why on God’s green Earth would it be okay for an owner of a corporation to say to it’s employees “we’ll pay for contraception but we won’t pay if you decide to get pregnant”? But that would be the same thing. But that wouldn’t be acceptable. But somehow it’s acceptable to not fund contraception - well, you know contraception for women that might cause abortions, cause vasectomies (duh!).
Why does one person’s religious freedom trump anyone else’s? How is this a win for religious freedom? This is a win for a specific religious right. This is for a wealthy, “old school,” “we’ve got your back,” kind of religious right. This is for the wealthy white dude who can pay the big time lawyer who will bring it to the mostly Catholic Supreme Court and frame it the right way. But this isn’t religious freedom, this is control.
It’s kind of gross how much this dude cares what his employees are doing outside of work, in their “free” time.
Don’t be a dick.
Treat others how you want to be treated.
Be excellent to each other.