Will the Owners of Hobby Lobby Have to Check Their Faith at Their Own Door?


#1

As SCOTUS hears HHS mandate arguments, Archbishop Kurtz on Hobby Lobby and religious freedom: [LEFT]

faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014/03/25/will-the-owners-of-hobby-lobby-have-to-check-their-faith-at-the-door/31419
[/LEFT]


#2

Great article. Thanks.


#3

Will be interesting to read about the specific arguments made by the government. Liberal media, like Huffington Post, keep framing up the argument as religious freedom vs. Reproductive rights…which is a false argument. Whether or not the HHS Mandate gets overturned or not, it had no impact on a woman’s ability to procure contraceptives or abortifacient drugs. They were legal before, and they would be legal if the Mandate is overturned.

What it boils down to is one group wants another group to finance their sex life. The left does not like the way that sounds, so they falsely frame it up as a “reproductive rights” issue. The only right they are seeking is the right to have unimpeded access to someone else’s wallet.


#4

[LEFT]Court majority harshly critical of Obamacare contraception mandate. [/LEFT]
[cnn.com/2014/03/25/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception-mandate/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter …](http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/25/politics/scotus-obamacare-contraception-mandate/index.html?sr=sharebar_twitter …)

Transcript will be here today:
supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx

Audio of the arguments will be here on Friday:
supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio.aspx


#5

Yet another example of why the concept of having your medical coverage, and thus your very life itself, tied in any way to your employment is completely illogical.


#6

Here’s an article from Catholic News Service:

catholicnewsagency.com/news/contraception-mandate-case-argued-at-us-supreme-court/

The Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments today. We all need to fervently pray for our religious freedom to be restored.


#7

Not completely. It’s in the best interest of one’s employer to have healthy employees, so providing medical coverage makes economic sense for the employer. What doesn’t make any sense is to demand that one’s employer finance one’s sex life.


#8

I sure hope and pray that our religious freedom is restored. I just wonder if this will have an effect on the thing where florists, bakers, and photographers have been sued for refusing to provide service for “gay weddings”. After all, if the court rules that the businesses have religious freedom rights then I would think it would protect them too.


#9

So what happens if the HHS mandate is upheld? Then what can we do?


#10

So what happens if the HHS mandate is upheld? Then what can we do?


#11

This happens to be a choice of conscience with which we agree. But how about employers whose religious beliefs prohibit blood transfusions? Or those who believe that all medical treatments and interventions are sinful and that prayer is all that is necessary to cure disease?

I had to get authorization from my DH to pick up his prescriptions from the pharmacy, but my employer could see all of my medical records because the company paid for my treatments. And I know of more than one instance in which a career was destroyed because the employee was diagnosed with a serious medical condition.

Why should the quality of your medical coverage and treatment be dependent on where you work?

Yes, employers have an interest in keeping having healthy employee, but the state has a much greater one in having healthy citizens.


#12

This is an interesting discussion on some of the issues involved:
c-span.org/video/?318433-1/health-care-law-contraceptives-mandate


#13

Thanks for the link.


#14

That was the major argument the Justices who were against Hobby Lobby were putting forward today. It may be the strongest argument for that side. I don’t think any of the non-liberal Justices bought it though. Since it basically said that an individual employer would have to go against their religious views whenever the government tells them to; even if the government doesn’t have a compelling reason to enforce it. That goes against stare decisis (how the Court ruled previously in a number of cases.) … and then there is RFRA.


#15

Its always been that way. Some people had no coverage, or others like union members had gold plated coverage.

I just fail to see how having someone else pay for their own contraceptives and abortifacients is a reduction of medical coverage. Didn’t have it before, so nothing has been lowered.


#16

This decision will have extreme implications in the future if they vote against Hobby Lobby, I hope the high court does what is right…or else, we are all in trouble!


#17

I’m not arguing whether BC should or should not be covered. My point is that medical insurance should not be connected to your job.

It has not ALWAYS been that way. Companies began offering medical insurance after WWII when wage and price controls were in place, to attract workers since they couldn’t raise pay. You’re right that there was (and still is) a great disparity in the coverage that people have. That seems wrong to me and certainly not in line with the teachings of the Church.


#18

There is a very easy way to delink health insurance from employers and that is to make employer paid health insurance premiums taxable income. If my employer pays $600 a month towards my health insurance, that is not taxed. But if my employer pays me $600 to buy my own policy, that $600 is taxed. So the tax treatment favors having my employer buy my health insurance for me. If we tax the benefit, then there would be no reason to have the employer buy health insurance.


#19

My understanding of the Church’s position is that people should have access to healthcare. I’m not sure that “healthcare” has been defined to mean “everybody gets the same”. Its impossible that it could be same, and there will always be some level of disparity, as a great doctor can see only so many people, and a great hospital can accept only so many patients. I do think its a moral imperative that everybody have access to some minimum level of healthcare, which I believe is in line with the Church’s teaching, but I have not seen a minimum level defined.


#20

What my company did when they wanted to provide a taxable benefit without making the recipient responsible for the tax was gross up the benefit, and then you’re back to square one. Q

Or we could do what every other industrialized country in the world does and offer universal health care.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.