3 ms·

The case you cited is not about whether the employees or people in general should have access to contraception. It's about whether an employer has to pay for i

The case you cited is not about whether the employees or people in general should have access to contraception. It's about whether an employer has to pay for it as part of their health benefits. That's quite a bit more nuanced than you've made it out to be. I think an employer like Hobby Lobby doing that is gross, but it's not as simple as you've made it sound.

jquery 3y ago
Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access. Nothing nuanced there unless you oppose contraception in general.
- freedomben 3y ago
  Can you please clarify what Hobby Lobby has to with the whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access? Are you saying for example that the gov wanted to directly provide contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby somehow sued to prevent this? Or are you reframing something like, "Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access" by forcing private employers to cover/pay/subsidize them?
  - jquery 3y ago
    The government regulates the hell out of employers for the common good. There's nothing special about contraception versus other required benefits *unless you oppose contraception*. As a point of comparison, the Supreme Court wouldn't take up a hypothetical case filed by a company that refused to provide nursing rooms, because Republicans don't oppose breastfeeding at work (yet...)
    - freedomben 3y ago
      Fair point, but another nuance present in this case is religious opposition. Hobby Lobby are Christians and believe that abortion is murder, and that things like Plan B are abortion. We can ridicule this opinion all we want as being absurd, but at the end of the day in the US there's a clear right to freedom of religion. We even exempt Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably others) from required military service during times of draft and such, so there is definitely precedent of not forcing people to take actions that violate their religious faith. So, it seems reasonable then that someone could be supportive of Hobby Lobby in this case because they highly value the right to religious freedom, rather than because they "love restricting contraception."

jquery 3y ago

Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access. Nothing nuanced there unless you oppose contraception in general.

freedomben 3y ago
Can you please clarify what Hobby Lobby has to with the whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access? Are you saying for example that the gov wanted to directly provide contraceptives, and Hobby Lobby somehow sued to prevent this? Or are you reframing something like, "Hobby Lobby was about whether the government is allowed to make contraception widely available and easy to access" by forcing private employers to cover/pay/subsidize them?
- jquery 3y ago
  The government regulates the hell out of employers for the common good. There's nothing special about contraception versus other required benefits *unless you oppose contraception*. As a point of comparison, the Supreme Court wouldn't take up a hypothetical case filed by a company that refused to provide nursing rooms, because Republicans don't oppose breastfeeding at work (yet...)
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Fair point, but another nuance present in this case is religious opposition. Hobby Lobby are Christians and believe that abortion is murder, and that things like Plan B are abortion. We can ridicule this opinion all we want as being absurd, but at the end of the day in the US there's a clear right to freedom of religion. We even exempt Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses (and probably others) from required military service during times of draft and such, so there is definitely precedent of not forcing people to take actions that violate their religious faith. So, it seems reasonable then that someone could be supportive of Hobby Lobby in this case because they highly value the right to religious freedom, rather than because they "love restricting contraception."