Hobby Lobby Decision, a rebuttal
kinkysmart has a post about the Hobby Lobby decision which needed a more thoughtful and nuanced response than could be achieved in the limited amount of space in the comments section.
I'll go through his post and offer my thoughts.
You wrote:
First, read this. It's one of the commentaries by someone who has read the opinions, and seems to be straddling the line of wanting to exercise religion, but is very concerned about women's healthcare rights.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/blame-it-on-the-patriarchy/373900/
It's a little hard to accept your premise that this will be a balanced straddling of the line when the article appears in "The Atlantic," its headline is "Blame the patriarchy," and it's accompanied by a picture of four female Supreme Court justices, leaving the impression that the majority decision was all-male and the dissent all-female. The last certainly isn't the case, since there are currently only three women on the Court.
But as I read down through the article, I found this quote:
"...in this case, those who oppose sexual freedom vs. those who support women's access to contraceptives..."
That's a very unfair and untrue way of putting both sides of the issue, but especially the opposition. People who agree with the majority decision don't oppose sexual freedom any more than they want to deny women access to healthcare or contraceptives. Yet that's what we constantly hear is our position from people on the left. (For the record, I'm more of a libertarian with conservative leanings than an all-out conservative.)
The case -- as you well know -- was about religious rights. So let's begin at the beginning, since the author of The Atlantic piece mentions the Founding Fathers, who wrote this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
That seems exceedingly clear, does it not? Yet Congress did, in fact, pass such a law, which was further embellished by the HHS. There isn't a line to straddle here; there's only one side or the other.
Ginsberg mentioned something in her dissent which was an echo of part of the government's argument:
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
I can think of many examples off the top of my head where religious organizations minister to or work alongside people outside their faith -- soup kitchens and other work with the homeless; ministries in Africa which bring water, food, medical care, education, or other opportunities to the poor; charity hospitals; private schools; etc. To suggest that a religious organization can only "foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith" is ridiculous (and untrue) on one hand and an example of the government seeking to prohibit the free exercise of their religious faith on the other.
The government's allegation was that if they served the needs of anyone outside their own faith, then suddenly they ceased to have any legal protection of their religious beliefs.
It is a central tenet of many religions to minister to those outside their faith, in order that those people may know the comfort of the Lord (the major exception is Judaism, which doesn't believe in proselytizing). You can agree or disagree with their belief, but it is what colors their actions in the greater world.
Many on the left seem to take the attitude that religious belief is just some sort of hobby or notion which can be easily dropped as someone leaves the church door, as evidenced by this chant heard by protesters at a Hobby Lobby over the weekend:
“Hobby Lobby, hear the news - religious views are for the pews.”
Actually, no, they're not. And this is precisely the sort of idea the Founders understood. For the sincerely religious, religion is a deeply held conviction which affects every decision one makes and every action one takes. It isn't something one believes while sitting in a pew on Sunday and then eschews the remainder of the week. If one is a true follower of Christ, then one believes he/she is called by God to be a shining example of the love of God active in his or her life.
So in this case, the owners of Hobby Lobby are acting on their belief that certain forms of birth control are wrong, because they might interfere with a new life which has already been created. Again, you can agree or disagree with their assertion, but don't they have the right to believe that AND follow their conscience in this matter by not aiding in the destruction of a life?
Something which has been overlooked by the left throughout much of this debate is that Hobby Lobby pays for 16 of the 20 FDA mandated forms of birth control; they refuse to pay for four. This, then, doesn't deny woman "access to contraceptives," since 80% of what the FDA approved was fine with Hobby Lobby; nor does it even deny women access to any contraceptives, since they are still free to pay out of their pocket for the birth control Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover.
From "The Atlantic" article:
But these details have been lumped into larger cultural narratives, particularly about women's rights. To some extent, this is understandable and important. One of the most powerful moments in Ginsburg's dissent is when she quotes Sandra Day O'Connor in a 1992 case involving Planned Parenthood: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." She also cites a number of critical facts about contraceptive access: Women pay significantly more than men. The cost of an Intrauterine Device, or IUD, is roughly equal to a month of pay for a woman working at minimum wage. Almost a third of women would change their form of birth-control if cost weren't a factor. In these and other spots throughout her dissent, Ginsburg is undoubtedly correct: Affordable birth-control access is an important economic and public-health issue.
Only about 5% of women use the IUD, as it's not terribly effective (for instance, it doesn't prevent an ectopic pregnancy) and can cause internal damage to the woman using it.
As for that last line in the paragraph, outside condoms, the pill is the cheapest form of birth control, at about $9/mo for women without insurance. About the cost of a burger combo. So unless a woman has a health condition which precludes her from safely using the pill or any other better method, I can't see why anyone would prefer using an IUD.
And, guess what? I'd buy different groceries if cost weren't a factor, dining on filet mignon every night instead of sirloin or chicken. Or, heck, I'd just eat out most every night, the way I used to until the recent economic downturn. I'd also buy a different car, live in a different neighborhood (or the same one, but in a bigger and nicer house) were cost not a factor. Dare I say, everyone in the world would choose nicer or more expensive stuff, if cost weren't an issue?
But the reality is that cost is ALWAYS an issue of great concern, since we pretty much are bound by the amount of money we have in a savings or checking account or can comfortably borrow from a bank.
Yes, contraceptive costs for women are much higher than for men, since condoms are dirt cheap -- after all, all a condom is is a sheath which covers the penis and prevents semen from escaping it. In other words, pretty low tech. Contraceptives for women, on the other hand, are much more involved and required a great deal of research and development. The very unfair reality of life is that women have always borne the brunt when it comes to birth control. Men can't be counted upon to think and plan ahead for that necessity, since they won't bear much in the way of consequences should an unplanned pregnancy occur. Men have the luxury of skipping off into the sunset, free of any consequences. Women don't, unless they give up their child for adoption.
This is why, over the course of human history, women have had to be careful about their behavior. They had to guard their maidenhood and fend off any unwanted advances from men they saw as interested only in getting their jollies and then leaving. "Sexual morality" wasn't simply imposed on women by prudish religious leaders; it was a necessity women embraced, in order to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies they could not afford nor did not want. (So feminists who go on and on about the patriarchy's role in this miss the historic reality entirely.)
Birth control, in that context, was a godsend to women, as it freed them from much of those considerations. But now women see "sexual freedom" as some God-given right when it isn't; it isn't even a protected right as defined in the Constitution.
If birth control affords women the opportunity to be just as promiscuous as any man, why then should paying for it be left to someone else who isn't a party to that act? Shouldn't it, instead, fall to the parties who are engaged in the act, i.e the man and the woman?
And yet the government takes the attitude that it has some overarching need to demand companies pay to protect their employees from the consequences of the employees' own choices and actions. How is this NOT an overstepping of the government's role? Outside the necessity of legalizing the use of birth control and seeing to it that birth control methods are safe and effective, why should government have ANY role in the matter?
The left loves to say they want to get government out of their bedrooms; but when it comes to birth control, why are they so insistent that, not only the government join them there, but also their employers should be in there, too? You either accept the premise that sex is a private matter for which individuals are only answerable to themselves (and thus also responsible for any cost of those decisions and their outcomes); or you accept that your sex life isn't private at all and is open to control by all and sundry, even those whose control you do not want. You can't have it both ways.
Which brings us to another point: an unstated assertion which runs just under the surface of Ginsberg's dissent and your post (and much thought on the left) is that people are "wage slaves" who are prisoners of the whims of their employer. It's true that while you work for a specific employer you do so at their sufferance; however, you can always end the relationship and work for someone else. If your current employer doesn't pay a salary you think you're worth, then you're free to leave. The same is true for benefits: if your employer doesn't offer you sufficient compensation of other kinds (paid vacation, paid holidays, paid sick leave, etc), then you can leave and seek employment elsewhere. If your town is big enough to support a Hobby Lobby, then there are plenty of other job opportunities available.
Walking away from a job might be more difficult if you work under a contract, but Hobby Lobby employees aren't under that constraint.
It's also not the case that Hobby Lobby was at all secretive about the religious beliefs of its owners. The stores used to (don't know if they still do) play instrumental versions of religious hymns while shoppers browsed the aisles. The stores are closed on Sunday. If an employee had a problem with any of this, again, they could end their association with the company.
I'll end this section by returning to the beginning: there really isn't a line to straddle here -- you're either on one side of it or the other. The First Amendment is very clear that we all have a right to conscience which cannot be infringed upon by the government, regardless of how "right" or "fair" or "just" their actions might seem. The moment someone else -- whether it's an individual or the government -- demands another forsake their beliefs is the moment we've stepped over a very serious line; and there ought to be a damned good excuse for doing so, when that's the case. Yet in the case of the demand that employers pay for birth control, the overstepping is over a very trivial matter. The left is literally pretending that this is about "women's health" and "women's access to birth control," when all it really amounts to is, "I don't want to have to bear the costs of my own choices in life." Why should your employer pay for your choices, especially if doing so would violate their conscience?
From your post:
Owner's, on the other hand, have made the choice to be Employers. This is a position reserved for the more powerful side of the equation, and far more often than not, is a profitable one. The employer makes the affirmative choice to go into business, and to reap all the benefits of a business located in America, but must also follow the rules - these rules, while often poorly organized and sometimes confusing, have been assembled because we as a nation have decided that it is in the best interest to have a public policy which supports a fair workplace. It's the path off of welfare, it's the route to wealth and ownership, it's how citizens become contributors through taxes and hopefully charitable donation. This is why the workplace is regulated, and those regulations create an environment that is more restrictive, in terms of rights, than the individual experiences in private life. In other words, if you decide to be an employer, you must act under a different standard.
There are a lot of leftist assumptions in that paragraph: that the balance between employer and employee is skewed to one side -- that of the employer. You mention the profits enjoyed by the employer, without ever noting the risks and financial costs he also bears. The only burden you seem to acknowledge is one of regulations placed on the employer by government, as if this is a good thing, or at the very least, a thing which is cost-neutral.
Companies don't exist to address the "equality," "fairness" or "social justice" of a society. They exist to make a profit by providing a good or service that others need or want, at a price their customers agree to pay. Any regulation or control the government places on businesses is another cost they have to bear, making their going concern less financially viable. It's worth noting that the heart of the reason we're having this discussion now -- the ACA -- is the chief reason our economy hasn't improved over the last several years and has led to the closing of many firms, as well as the cutting of hours of millions of employees. Because, once again, the full cost of meeting government regulation is something that politicians often give little consideration of before passing their sweeping legislation.
Yes, employment gives us all the opportunity to pay taxes and contribute to the charities of our choice, but MAINLY it allows us to pay our bills and improve our standard of living. Work allows us to buy the things we need -- shelter, a vehicle, clothes on our backs and food in our bellies -- and the things we'd like to have -- vacations to far-off places, better shelter, food, or clothes, hobbies, etc. All of this economic activity on our part drives the economy to create even more businesses which will cater to our whims and the limits of our pocketbooks.
Every time the government enacts a new law or imposes a new regulation against businesses, there is a cost, which places a strain on the financial health of that company. Employers then are forced to weigh whether they can continue to do business, or whether they must close their doors. It isn't in government's interest that these businesses close, since business is the engine of our economy; without business there is no income and no tax on same. Yet the government passes more and more laws and imposes more and more regulations without regard or concern what those new laws will do to the businesses and the economy they drive.
Why do you so easily accept the premise that government intervention into every aspect of business is necessary and beneficial? Why do you assume more and more laws are needed, when there are so many the government currently ignores and chooses not to enforce?
You said:
"As an employer, this same person should not be granted the same freedom to impose a religious view upon others."
and later:
"An oppressive workplace is not a fair workplace, and the opportunities for advancement, independence, and achievement are limited when the workplace is granted the same power to discriminate on religious grounds as we allow the individual person."
If I expect you to do something for me but you choose not to, have you "imposed" your viewpoint on me? How is Hobby Lobby an "oppressive workplace" when all they've done is say they don't want to buy IUDs and RU-486 for their employees? How have they denied people "opportunities for advancement, independence, and achievement"? And how, exactly, are they guilty of having discriminated against anyone on religious grounds?
If the company is paying for an employee's health insurance, shouldn't the EMPLOYER decide what they will and will not pay for, rather than the government decide that? When Uncle Sam is picking up the tab (at the taxpayers' expense), then he has the right to decide. Until that time, maybe it should be up to the people paying the bills.
You go on to say:
Any employer uncomfortable with the restrictions of being an employer, may choose not to be an employer.
Ah, now... here we come to it, don't we? If you don't like how the government burdens you, well, then... close your doors.
But we've already established -- haven't we? -- that businesses closing their doors is a negative thing, particularly in our current struggling economy. Fewer businesses means fewer available jobs, means less money to support the government.
How does your quote compare with this statement made by Senator Chuck Schumer last week:
“You’re born with a religion or you adopt a religion. You have to obey the precepts of that religion, and the government gives you a wide penumbra. You don’t have to form a corporation.”
Are you and he suggesting that if religious employers don't like government rules which violate their religious conscience, then tough titties? Close your doors. It's my way or the highway.
Would you or he feel comfortable telling black business owners if they don't like government rules, maybe they shouldn't own a company? Would you feel comfortable telling that to women? How about gay people? Why, then, do you feel comfortable telling that to religious people? Why do you assume that an individual stops having individual rights when they open a business? Because I don't recall the Founders mentioning any exceptions to the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights; they're universal and unalienable -- we cannot be separated from them; yet your entire premise is based on the very notion that we can and should be separated from them if we establish a business.
You said earlier that in the workplace we're all basically forced to tolerate things we wouldn't have to tolerate as private individuals. Does that tolerance not extend to workers having to tolerate the religious views of their employers? Does tolerance flow in all directions, or only in some? And if it's the latter, then why?
It's interesting to me that I see business as a situation where individuals voluntarily come together in order that all may benefit; while the left sees business as yet another means to achieving some social justice end.
You said:
We grant Corporations the status of "personhood" for a myriad of complex reasons, but we should not do so at the expense of a better society, a more equal society. As we allow a corporation the freedom of speech to have a robust media and news, we allow corporations to have religious exercise because it's the same Amendment, and it's difficult to split clauses. But the First Amendment rights afforded to corporations is done so in the public interest - to make a better society. This is the reason why laws have been passed which restrict discriminatory practices in the workplace, while not restricted in the home. The workplace is different. It serves a different purpose. If the law is the foundation of equality, then the workplace is that first step. Without a fair first step, available to all who put in the effort, we cannot sit back and comfortably say its a meritocracy.
We grant corporations the status of "personhood" mainly so that companies can go on existing long after the person or people who founded them are dead. It's not really all that complex. But, moreover, the reality is that companies are made up of people -- people whose rights do not end when they enter the premises of the business. Their speech rights don't end and their rights of conscience don't end, either.
Those rights aren't afforded to anyone -- not corporations and not individuals -- by the public interest. They're not granted by government and cannot be rescinded; they are ours as our birthright as Americans.
"If the law is the foundation of equality..."
Is the law the foundation of equality, or did the Founders assert that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"? If the latter, then the law is the means by which we ensure the equality we all have as humans. The law is the codification of Universal Truth; it is not that truth in itself.
We all have equal rights; that does not grant equal outcomes. It is up to us to make of our lives and opportunities what we can. The responsibility of the law and government is to enable this as much as reasonably possible.
You said:
You made that choice to be the boss and play a role in the greater society - a very powerful role. The corporation stands for you and over the people who have come to depend upon this maze of paper filings to achieve their personal goals, and to not be dependent upon the state. In exchange for the power and the profit, you agree to abide by the rules of employers - or rather, the corporation agrees. After all, it's this pretend-person who is employing the workers. If a religious bigot wants to impose his views on his workers, at least have the balls to do it as a sole proprietorship, where there is no line between the owner and the business. At least then, the Person isn't hiding in a Legal Fiction, a Tax Entity, a Personal Liability Shield. When two Rights collide, we go to Public Policy for a decision. Are the owners free to exercise their religion if they are separated from the Corporation? It's a separate and independent entity, so yes - they can be as righteously bigoted as they wish. Wanting to extend their personal beliefs through the independent entity, like a sock-puppet that can bring wealth of ruin to people's lives, that's a right they have as well, call it a bonus right above and beyond their own exercise - Double Exercise. Weight that against workplace equality, self sufficiency, the ability to work and live and strive for more. I believe that any chance of this country achieving another era of Greatness will be determined in the workplace of the 21st century.
I take great exception to your characterization of these people as "religious bigots," simply because the dictates of their hearts differ from yours. I also see now why you tagged your post a rant, given your level of anger in this paragraph.
We seem to have lost something very basic in this country in the past fifteen years or so: the willingness to agree to disagree without casting any aspersions on those who disagree with us.
I'm debating this in good faith with you, because you've indicated that you're willing to listen to the other side. But just how willing are you, really, when your basic assumption is that business owners who don't want to pay for some forms of birth control are "religious bigots"? Again, I ask you, how, exactly, is the Green family imposing their religious views on their employees? The employee can still acquire and use birth control; and for the types Hobby Lobby doesn't want to buy, employees are free to pay for them out of their own pockets, just as generations of women before them have. And if none of that is sufficient, the employees are free to end their association with Hobby Lobby.
Why should women get completely free birth control when diabetics don't get their insulin without a co-pay? I'm pretty sure that going without insulin is a more life-threatening situation than going without birth control...
BTW... since it's a family which owns Hobby Lobby rather than an individual, they couldn't be a sole proprietorship. I'm assuming the generational nature of a family is why they incorporated, rather than hold it as a limited liability partnership.
You said:
What Hobby Lobby wanted was very reasonable - if it were the people acting. But it wasn't - it's a corporation who is now providing the things we have asked the State to stay away from. That in itself is asking for discrimination, but our balance is to demand a fair work environment. Hobby Lobby was nothing, their issues are tiny and there's already a work-around. It's what comes next - the next chip away from civil rights, workers rights, erosion of equality. The author in the above referenced article should be smart enough to see that this decision will not occur in a vacuum, that the attempt at balancing rights is false equivalence. Religious exercise is almost exclusively discriminatory by the very nature of religion - it is unequal because there must be saints and sinners, us and them, and preference is given to us. That's church, every time - and as long as church is optional, I can live with their divided factious society. But not the workplace, not the first step on the ladder. We need that to remain fair, open, available to any with the merit.
Actually, T, we're all sinners, even those who practice religion -- whatever that religion may be. No one's perfect. And because believers understand this, we take great care to love those around us, even those who condemn us and hate us for what we are; because we probably were in the same boat they're in now. We've known hardship, loss, the wages of sin... we've been down and felt lost and without hope.
If you have the sense that the religious think they're better than you, then either that's a misunderstanding on your part, or those who gave you that impression weren't very good examples of their faith.
There's a lot I didn't address in your post that I may revisit... but I think I've covered some of the most important issues.
I'll go through his post and offer my thoughts.
You wrote:
First, read this. It's one of the commentaries by someone who has read the opinions, and seems to be straddling the line of wanting to exercise religion, but is very concerned about women's healthcare rights.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/07/blame-it-on-the-patriarchy/373900/
It's a little hard to accept your premise that this will be a balanced straddling of the line when the article appears in "The Atlantic," its headline is "Blame the patriarchy," and it's accompanied by a picture of four female Supreme Court justices, leaving the impression that the majority decision was all-male and the dissent all-female. The last certainly isn't the case, since there are currently only three women on the Court.
But as I read down through the article, I found this quote:
"...in this case, those who oppose sexual freedom vs. those who support women's access to contraceptives..."
That's a very unfair and untrue way of putting both sides of the issue, but especially the opposition. People who agree with the majority decision don't oppose sexual freedom any more than they want to deny women access to healthcare or contraceptives. Yet that's what we constantly hear is our position from people on the left. (For the record, I'm more of a libertarian with conservative leanings than an all-out conservative.)
The case -- as you well know -- was about religious rights. So let's begin at the beginning, since the author of The Atlantic piece mentions the Founding Fathers, who wrote this:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
That seems exceedingly clear, does it not? Yet Congress did, in fact, pass such a law, which was further embellished by the HHS. There isn't a line to straddle here; there's only one side or the other.
Ginsberg mentioned something in her dissent which was an echo of part of the government's argument:
"Religious organizations exist to foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith. Not so of for-profit corporations. Workers who sustain the operations of those corporations commonly are not drawn from one religious community."
I can think of many examples off the top of my head where religious organizations minister to or work alongside people outside their faith -- soup kitchens and other work with the homeless; ministries in Africa which bring water, food, medical care, education, or other opportunities to the poor; charity hospitals; private schools; etc. To suggest that a religious organization can only "foster the interests of persons subscribing to the same religious faith" is ridiculous (and untrue) on one hand and an example of the government seeking to prohibit the free exercise of their religious faith on the other.
The government's allegation was that if they served the needs of anyone outside their own faith, then suddenly they ceased to have any legal protection of their religious beliefs.
It is a central tenet of many religions to minister to those outside their faith, in order that those people may know the comfort of the Lord (the major exception is Judaism, which doesn't believe in proselytizing). You can agree or disagree with their belief, but it is what colors their actions in the greater world.
Many on the left seem to take the attitude that religious belief is just some sort of hobby or notion which can be easily dropped as someone leaves the church door, as evidenced by this chant heard by protesters at a Hobby Lobby over the weekend:
“Hobby Lobby, hear the news - religious views are for the pews.”
Actually, no, they're not. And this is precisely the sort of idea the Founders understood. For the sincerely religious, religion is a deeply held conviction which affects every decision one makes and every action one takes. It isn't something one believes while sitting in a pew on Sunday and then eschews the remainder of the week. If one is a true follower of Christ, then one believes he/she is called by God to be a shining example of the love of God active in his or her life.
So in this case, the owners of Hobby Lobby are acting on their belief that certain forms of birth control are wrong, because they might interfere with a new life which has already been created. Again, you can agree or disagree with their assertion, but don't they have the right to believe that AND follow their conscience in this matter by not aiding in the destruction of a life?
Something which has been overlooked by the left throughout much of this debate is that Hobby Lobby pays for 16 of the 20 FDA mandated forms of birth control; they refuse to pay for four. This, then, doesn't deny woman "access to contraceptives," since 80% of what the FDA approved was fine with Hobby Lobby; nor does it even deny women access to any contraceptives, since they are still free to pay out of their pocket for the birth control Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover.
From "The Atlantic" article:
But these details have been lumped into larger cultural narratives, particularly about women's rights. To some extent, this is understandable and important. One of the most powerful moments in Ginsburg's dissent is when she quotes Sandra Day O'Connor in a 1992 case involving Planned Parenthood: “The ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives." She also cites a number of critical facts about contraceptive access: Women pay significantly more than men. The cost of an Intrauterine Device, or IUD, is roughly equal to a month of pay for a woman working at minimum wage. Almost a third of women would change their form of birth-control if cost weren't a factor. In these and other spots throughout her dissent, Ginsburg is undoubtedly correct: Affordable birth-control access is an important economic and public-health issue.
Only about 5% of women use the IUD, as it's not terribly effective (for instance, it doesn't prevent an ectopic pregnancy) and can cause internal damage to the woman using it.
As for that last line in the paragraph, outside condoms, the pill is the cheapest form of birth control, at about $9/mo for women without insurance. About the cost of a burger combo. So unless a woman has a health condition which precludes her from safely using the pill or any other better method, I can't see why anyone would prefer using an IUD.
And, guess what? I'd buy different groceries if cost weren't a factor, dining on filet mignon every night instead of sirloin or chicken. Or, heck, I'd just eat out most every night, the way I used to until the recent economic downturn. I'd also buy a different car, live in a different neighborhood (or the same one, but in a bigger and nicer house) were cost not a factor. Dare I say, everyone in the world would choose nicer or more expensive stuff, if cost weren't an issue?
But the reality is that cost is ALWAYS an issue of great concern, since we pretty much are bound by the amount of money we have in a savings or checking account or can comfortably borrow from a bank.
Yes, contraceptive costs for women are much higher than for men, since condoms are dirt cheap -- after all, all a condom is is a sheath which covers the penis and prevents semen from escaping it. In other words, pretty low tech. Contraceptives for women, on the other hand, are much more involved and required a great deal of research and development. The very unfair reality of life is that women have always borne the brunt when it comes to birth control. Men can't be counted upon to think and plan ahead for that necessity, since they won't bear much in the way of consequences should an unplanned pregnancy occur. Men have the luxury of skipping off into the sunset, free of any consequences. Women don't, unless they give up their child for adoption.
This is why, over the course of human history, women have had to be careful about their behavior. They had to guard their maidenhood and fend off any unwanted advances from men they saw as interested only in getting their jollies and then leaving. "Sexual morality" wasn't simply imposed on women by prudish religious leaders; it was a necessity women embraced, in order to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies they could not afford nor did not want. (So feminists who go on and on about the patriarchy's role in this miss the historic reality entirely.)
Birth control, in that context, was a godsend to women, as it freed them from much of those considerations. But now women see "sexual freedom" as some God-given right when it isn't; it isn't even a protected right as defined in the Constitution.
If birth control affords women the opportunity to be just as promiscuous as any man, why then should paying for it be left to someone else who isn't a party to that act? Shouldn't it, instead, fall to the parties who are engaged in the act, i.e the man and the woman?
And yet the government takes the attitude that it has some overarching need to demand companies pay to protect their employees from the consequences of the employees' own choices and actions. How is this NOT an overstepping of the government's role? Outside the necessity of legalizing the use of birth control and seeing to it that birth control methods are safe and effective, why should government have ANY role in the matter?
The left loves to say they want to get government out of their bedrooms; but when it comes to birth control, why are they so insistent that, not only the government join them there, but also their employers should be in there, too? You either accept the premise that sex is a private matter for which individuals are only answerable to themselves (and thus also responsible for any cost of those decisions and their outcomes); or you accept that your sex life isn't private at all and is open to control by all and sundry, even those whose control you do not want. You can't have it both ways.
Which brings us to another point: an unstated assertion which runs just under the surface of Ginsberg's dissent and your post (and much thought on the left) is that people are "wage slaves" who are prisoners of the whims of their employer. It's true that while you work for a specific employer you do so at their sufferance; however, you can always end the relationship and work for someone else. If your current employer doesn't pay a salary you think you're worth, then you're free to leave. The same is true for benefits: if your employer doesn't offer you sufficient compensation of other kinds (paid vacation, paid holidays, paid sick leave, etc), then you can leave and seek employment elsewhere. If your town is big enough to support a Hobby Lobby, then there are plenty of other job opportunities available.
Walking away from a job might be more difficult if you work under a contract, but Hobby Lobby employees aren't under that constraint.
It's also not the case that Hobby Lobby was at all secretive about the religious beliefs of its owners. The stores used to (don't know if they still do) play instrumental versions of religious hymns while shoppers browsed the aisles. The stores are closed on Sunday. If an employee had a problem with any of this, again, they could end their association with the company.
I'll end this section by returning to the beginning: there really isn't a line to straddle here -- you're either on one side of it or the other. The First Amendment is very clear that we all have a right to conscience which cannot be infringed upon by the government, regardless of how "right" or "fair" or "just" their actions might seem. The moment someone else -- whether it's an individual or the government -- demands another forsake their beliefs is the moment we've stepped over a very serious line; and there ought to be a damned good excuse for doing so, when that's the case. Yet in the case of the demand that employers pay for birth control, the overstepping is over a very trivial matter. The left is literally pretending that this is about "women's health" and "women's access to birth control," when all it really amounts to is, "I don't want to have to bear the costs of my own choices in life." Why should your employer pay for your choices, especially if doing so would violate their conscience?
From your post:
Owner's, on the other hand, have made the choice to be Employers. This is a position reserved for the more powerful side of the equation, and far more often than not, is a profitable one. The employer makes the affirmative choice to go into business, and to reap all the benefits of a business located in America, but must also follow the rules - these rules, while often poorly organized and sometimes confusing, have been assembled because we as a nation have decided that it is in the best interest to have a public policy which supports a fair workplace. It's the path off of welfare, it's the route to wealth and ownership, it's how citizens become contributors through taxes and hopefully charitable donation. This is why the workplace is regulated, and those regulations create an environment that is more restrictive, in terms of rights, than the individual experiences in private life. In other words, if you decide to be an employer, you must act under a different standard.
There are a lot of leftist assumptions in that paragraph: that the balance between employer and employee is skewed to one side -- that of the employer. You mention the profits enjoyed by the employer, without ever noting the risks and financial costs he also bears. The only burden you seem to acknowledge is one of regulations placed on the employer by government, as if this is a good thing, or at the very least, a thing which is cost-neutral.
Companies don't exist to address the "equality," "fairness" or "social justice" of a society. They exist to make a profit by providing a good or service that others need or want, at a price their customers agree to pay. Any regulation or control the government places on businesses is another cost they have to bear, making their going concern less financially viable. It's worth noting that the heart of the reason we're having this discussion now -- the ACA -- is the chief reason our economy hasn't improved over the last several years and has led to the closing of many firms, as well as the cutting of hours of millions of employees. Because, once again, the full cost of meeting government regulation is something that politicians often give little consideration of before passing their sweeping legislation.
Yes, employment gives us all the opportunity to pay taxes and contribute to the charities of our choice, but MAINLY it allows us to pay our bills and improve our standard of living. Work allows us to buy the things we need -- shelter, a vehicle, clothes on our backs and food in our bellies -- and the things we'd like to have -- vacations to far-off places, better shelter, food, or clothes, hobbies, etc. All of this economic activity on our part drives the economy to create even more businesses which will cater to our whims and the limits of our pocketbooks.
Every time the government enacts a new law or imposes a new regulation against businesses, there is a cost, which places a strain on the financial health of that company. Employers then are forced to weigh whether they can continue to do business, or whether they must close their doors. It isn't in government's interest that these businesses close, since business is the engine of our economy; without business there is no income and no tax on same. Yet the government passes more and more laws and imposes more and more regulations without regard or concern what those new laws will do to the businesses and the economy they drive.
Why do you so easily accept the premise that government intervention into every aspect of business is necessary and beneficial? Why do you assume more and more laws are needed, when there are so many the government currently ignores and chooses not to enforce?
You said:
"As an employer, this same person should not be granted the same freedom to impose a religious view upon others."
and later:
"An oppressive workplace is not a fair workplace, and the opportunities for advancement, independence, and achievement are limited when the workplace is granted the same power to discriminate on religious grounds as we allow the individual person."
If I expect you to do something for me but you choose not to, have you "imposed" your viewpoint on me? How is Hobby Lobby an "oppressive workplace" when all they've done is say they don't want to buy IUDs and RU-486 for their employees? How have they denied people "opportunities for advancement, independence, and achievement"? And how, exactly, are they guilty of having discriminated against anyone on religious grounds?
If the company is paying for an employee's health insurance, shouldn't the EMPLOYER decide what they will and will not pay for, rather than the government decide that? When Uncle Sam is picking up the tab (at the taxpayers' expense), then he has the right to decide. Until that time, maybe it should be up to the people paying the bills.
You go on to say:
Any employer uncomfortable with the restrictions of being an employer, may choose not to be an employer.
Ah, now... here we come to it, don't we? If you don't like how the government burdens you, well, then... close your doors.
But we've already established -- haven't we? -- that businesses closing their doors is a negative thing, particularly in our current struggling economy. Fewer businesses means fewer available jobs, means less money to support the government.
How does your quote compare with this statement made by Senator Chuck Schumer last week:
“You’re born with a religion or you adopt a religion. You have to obey the precepts of that religion, and the government gives you a wide penumbra. You don’t have to form a corporation.”
Are you and he suggesting that if religious employers don't like government rules which violate their religious conscience, then tough titties? Close your doors. It's my way or the highway.
Would you or he feel comfortable telling black business owners if they don't like government rules, maybe they shouldn't own a company? Would you feel comfortable telling that to women? How about gay people? Why, then, do you feel comfortable telling that to religious people? Why do you assume that an individual stops having individual rights when they open a business? Because I don't recall the Founders mentioning any exceptions to the rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights; they're universal and unalienable -- we cannot be separated from them; yet your entire premise is based on the very notion that we can and should be separated from them if we establish a business.
You said earlier that in the workplace we're all basically forced to tolerate things we wouldn't have to tolerate as private individuals. Does that tolerance not extend to workers having to tolerate the religious views of their employers? Does tolerance flow in all directions, or only in some? And if it's the latter, then why?
It's interesting to me that I see business as a situation where individuals voluntarily come together in order that all may benefit; while the left sees business as yet another means to achieving some social justice end.
You said:
We grant Corporations the status of "personhood" for a myriad of complex reasons, but we should not do so at the expense of a better society, a more equal society. As we allow a corporation the freedom of speech to have a robust media and news, we allow corporations to have religious exercise because it's the same Amendment, and it's difficult to split clauses. But the First Amendment rights afforded to corporations is done so in the public interest - to make a better society. This is the reason why laws have been passed which restrict discriminatory practices in the workplace, while not restricted in the home. The workplace is different. It serves a different purpose. If the law is the foundation of equality, then the workplace is that first step. Without a fair first step, available to all who put in the effort, we cannot sit back and comfortably say its a meritocracy.
We grant corporations the status of "personhood" mainly so that companies can go on existing long after the person or people who founded them are dead. It's not really all that complex. But, moreover, the reality is that companies are made up of people -- people whose rights do not end when they enter the premises of the business. Their speech rights don't end and their rights of conscience don't end, either.
Those rights aren't afforded to anyone -- not corporations and not individuals -- by the public interest. They're not granted by government and cannot be rescinded; they are ours as our birthright as Americans.
"If the law is the foundation of equality..."
Is the law the foundation of equality, or did the Founders assert that "all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"? If the latter, then the law is the means by which we ensure the equality we all have as humans. The law is the codification of Universal Truth; it is not that truth in itself.
We all have equal rights; that does not grant equal outcomes. It is up to us to make of our lives and opportunities what we can. The responsibility of the law and government is to enable this as much as reasonably possible.
You said:
You made that choice to be the boss and play a role in the greater society - a very powerful role. The corporation stands for you and over the people who have come to depend upon this maze of paper filings to achieve their personal goals, and to not be dependent upon the state. In exchange for the power and the profit, you agree to abide by the rules of employers - or rather, the corporation agrees. After all, it's this pretend-person who is employing the workers. If a religious bigot wants to impose his views on his workers, at least have the balls to do it as a sole proprietorship, where there is no line between the owner and the business. At least then, the Person isn't hiding in a Legal Fiction, a Tax Entity, a Personal Liability Shield. When two Rights collide, we go to Public Policy for a decision. Are the owners free to exercise their religion if they are separated from the Corporation? It's a separate and independent entity, so yes - they can be as righteously bigoted as they wish. Wanting to extend their personal beliefs through the independent entity, like a sock-puppet that can bring wealth of ruin to people's lives, that's a right they have as well, call it a bonus right above and beyond their own exercise - Double Exercise. Weight that against workplace equality, self sufficiency, the ability to work and live and strive for more. I believe that any chance of this country achieving another era of Greatness will be determined in the workplace of the 21st century.
I take great exception to your characterization of these people as "religious bigots," simply because the dictates of their hearts differ from yours. I also see now why you tagged your post a rant, given your level of anger in this paragraph.
We seem to have lost something very basic in this country in the past fifteen years or so: the willingness to agree to disagree without casting any aspersions on those who disagree with us.
I'm debating this in good faith with you, because you've indicated that you're willing to listen to the other side. But just how willing are you, really, when your basic assumption is that business owners who don't want to pay for some forms of birth control are "religious bigots"? Again, I ask you, how, exactly, is the Green family imposing their religious views on their employees? The employee can still acquire and use birth control; and for the types Hobby Lobby doesn't want to buy, employees are free to pay for them out of their own pockets, just as generations of women before them have. And if none of that is sufficient, the employees are free to end their association with Hobby Lobby.
Why should women get completely free birth control when diabetics don't get their insulin without a co-pay? I'm pretty sure that going without insulin is a more life-threatening situation than going without birth control...
BTW... since it's a family which owns Hobby Lobby rather than an individual, they couldn't be a sole proprietorship. I'm assuming the generational nature of a family is why they incorporated, rather than hold it as a limited liability partnership.
You said:
What Hobby Lobby wanted was very reasonable - if it were the people acting. But it wasn't - it's a corporation who is now providing the things we have asked the State to stay away from. That in itself is asking for discrimination, but our balance is to demand a fair work environment. Hobby Lobby was nothing, their issues are tiny and there's already a work-around. It's what comes next - the next chip away from civil rights, workers rights, erosion of equality. The author in the above referenced article should be smart enough to see that this decision will not occur in a vacuum, that the attempt at balancing rights is false equivalence. Religious exercise is almost exclusively discriminatory by the very nature of religion - it is unequal because there must be saints and sinners, us and them, and preference is given to us. That's church, every time - and as long as church is optional, I can live with their divided factious society. But not the workplace, not the first step on the ladder. We need that to remain fair, open, available to any with the merit.
Actually, T, we're all sinners, even those who practice religion -- whatever that religion may be. No one's perfect. And because believers understand this, we take great care to love those around us, even those who condemn us and hate us for what we are; because we probably were in the same boat they're in now. We've known hardship, loss, the wages of sin... we've been down and felt lost and without hope.
If you have the sense that the religious think they're better than you, then either that's a misunderstanding on your part, or those who gave you that impression weren't very good examples of their faith.
There's a lot I didn't address in your post that I may revisit... but I think I've covered some of the most important issues.