[Cementjungle]

I’ll pay for your condoms if you pay for my ammunition.

[Ray76]

Yet another example of the intellectual vapidity of socialism.

[Hulka]

“Once again, they are not providing contraception. They are providing an option to have contraception, which the employee will then decide to either use or not use. “

Proving a pay-check does the same thing.

[lastchance]

Wrong. Hobby Lobby has never claimed they are against contraceptive on the whole but that they are against abortifacients. There is medical dispute over whether Plan B acts as an abortifacient. Remember too the ACA also covers devices such as IUDs which can cause abortion.

[aimhigh]

What a stupid article. The author can justify any type of evil government action based on his final argument.

[Dr. Sivana]

First, the Obamacare mandate also applies to non-corporations (sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc.). Second, it also applies to those employers who self-insure, so they WOULD be forced to pay directly for that stuff.

[MestaMachine]

“and that they should not be paying to provide them for their customers.”

Their CUSTOMERS?

Here’s the deal. They should not be FORCED by the GOVERNMENT to pay for this stuff if they don’t want to. NO ONE SHOULD! Get it? It’s FREEDOM itself that is at stake here.

[Washi]

Jason Hines, an attorney, is completing his PhD in church-state studies at Baylor University.

Sigh.

[jiggyboy]

Hobby Lobby was providing for the contraceptives they now are against and that their only problem really seems to be that the government is now obligating them to do what they were already doing.

Indeed. I wonder if he thinks there's a difference between donating to a charity and taxation.

[Prospero]

"...their only problem really seems to be that the government is now obligating them to do what they were already doing."

Maybe this will get the writer's former girl friends to regret dumping him, but as serious legal argument it fails. Even if it's "their only problem," government "obliging them" is not a tangential issue. That's pretty much the problem most of us have with this hateful law, and that's without a host of other non-trivial issues with its process and its institution.

[jiggyboy]

If Hobby Lobby can remove contraception from employees’ health care, why can’t Jehovah’s Witnesses remove blood transfusions?

I'm getting ready to make some side dishes. Any six-year-old Freepers want to take this one?

[so_real]

As slavery is illegal, the only requirement an employer has is to provide a paycheck. Unions formed so as to push working conditions safety and adequate compensation. At what point did the employer become required to provide health care? (oh, yeah, ObominationCare) Health care was a "perk" provided by the employer to attract higher caliber employees. Why shouldn't the employer decide what is, and what is not, purchased as a perk for the benefit of the employee? A "mandate" equals one-size-fits-all socialism. That's not the American way.

[ConjunctionJunction]

The fact that the author refers to a “primer” from the Center for American Progress tells me all I need to know.

[VerySadAmerican]

If corporations can be forced to provide things that are against the owners’ religious beliefs because corporations aren’t people, how can they force corporations to provide anything?

[Extremely Extreme Extremist]

I reject the author’s premise.

[count-your-change]

If the argument can be made, “Keep the government out of my bedroom”, why NOT “Keep the government out of my health insurance policy”?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Bad enough that the government promotes abortion.

The actual point of the ObamaCare mandate is to force employers to pay for something which they disapprove of. And whoso pays for something, promotes that thing, willy nilly.

This is far from the least intrusive means to the putative end; the very intention of the mandate is to violate the conscience of those it constrains.

[Nuc 1.1]

The “Debate” is not about contraceptives, it is about liberty! It is about stopping busy body individuals dictating how you must live your lives. How YOU must bend to their will. Or suffer the consequences. I say no! RESIST Evil!

[xjcsa]

Good lord.

[IronJack]

This whole "corporation-is-not-a-person" argument rings hollow. Corporations ARE able to promote certain values and to censure others. Look how many are jumping on the "green" bandwagon. Or how many are pro-homo. So it is not outside the corporate domain to embrace pro-life or pro-Christian values.

And the First Amendment does not limit its protection of religious liberty to persons anyway: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." That means "free exercise" by persons AND by corporations, in whatever degree a corporation can be said to practice any values.

The same people who condemn corporations as "evil" will not admit that corporations can be "good."

There is no legal reason whatsoever that a corporation cannot claim the same constitutional legal protections as an individual.