Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Showing Original Post only (View all)

The Magistrate

(95,247 posts)
Wed Jul 2, 2014, 12:47 PM Jul 2014

Nothing Stops Hobby Lobby From Saying No Portion Of Salary Can Be used For Birth Control.... [View all]

The employer no more provides the services insured than the employer provides anything an employee purchases with compensation received for working for the employer. The premium paid to the insurer is part of the employee's compensation; something the employee receives in exchange for labor. The matter is analogous to that of the 'employer's contribution' to Social Security: saying the payment under FICA is split between employee and employer is a mere cosmetic fiction, intended to disguise the full weight of the tax on the employee's salary --- the 'employer's contribution' is actually part of the wage paid, it simply is sent in payment of part of the tax on behalf of the employee by the employer. That the employer acts as the agent for the employees in purchasing health insurance for them does not alter this: the insurance is part of what the employee receives for labor, a portion of the compensation paid, and neither purchased by nor provided by the employer. One could, I suppose, have scruples about what one will do as the agent of another, and refuse to do something one is asked to do by another as her or his agent. But in a case where law directs a person acting as another's agent to do a thing, and one has scruples against it, the proper course is to decline the agency. Hobby Lobby, in short, would be free to not include health insurance as part of its compensation for employees, if doing so would require it to do something its owners had scruples over --- they would have to pay a fine, but what is a clear conscience without a price paid? What they do not have any right to do, cannot have any right to do, is require people to abide by their own religious beliefs as a condition of employment, which is what their exemption from a general requirement of law in structuring their compensation to employees amounts to. And if they can require employees to accept a compensation package that does not provide birth control as part of their health insurance, which is in fact stating that no portion of the compensation an employee receives as insurance can be spent on birth control, I fail to see any limiting principle in this decision which would prevent an employer from telling an employee no portion of the compensation you receive from me for your time and labor can be spent on something I personally find immoral. And you may be sure that sooner or later someone with sufficient gumption to try that will emerge, and the case be ram-rodded to the supreme Court....

30 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
There may indeed be fanatics who would wish to impose such a restriction tularetom Jul 2014 #1
The Question, Sir, Is Whether The Door Has Been Opened To Attempt It The Magistrate Jul 2014 #2
The door has definitely been at least cracked a bit tularetom Jul 2014 #3
Yep. Aerows Jul 2014 #14
You are so right, Sir. nt Hekate Jul 2014 #18
With these folks, ANY crack, even the tiniest, WILL be exploited. calimary Jul 2014 #24
True, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2014 #25
it can be part of the terms of employment nt geek tragedy Jul 2014 #19
I wonder if an atheist CEO could forbid tithing. jeff47 Jul 2014 #4
You always side with the weak instead of the powerful. BootinUp Jul 2014 #5
In this case Lurker Deluxe Jul 2014 #6
Even In 'Self-Insurance', Sir, The Analysis Remains Unchanged The Magistrate Jul 2014 #8
Why not Hobby Lobby Gift Cards in lieu of wages? leftstreet Jul 2014 #7
You can't eat foam crosses. MohRokTah Jul 2014 #9
Totally false. former9thward Jul 2014 #10
Under This Decision, Sir, The Door Is Certainly Open For Just That The Magistrate Jul 2014 #11
While I think that wouldn't happen without sharp countersuits Aerows Jul 2014 #13
And That Is My Point, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2014 #17
So they could dictate how their employees Aerows Jul 2014 #12
If a religious objection Is claimed, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2014 #15
The five buttheads that opened the gate on this Aerows Jul 2014 #16
If you receive wages as a debit card, you already are leftstreet Jul 2014 #20
True, Sir --- And Without Even The Fig-Leaf Of Religious Devotion To Usury Being Claimed.... The Magistrate Jul 2014 #21
Well, Magistrate, if offered the position on SCOTUS truedelphi Jul 2014 #22
Thoughtful and timely analysis, sir, as always. mac56 Jul 2014 #23
Thank You, Sir The Magistrate Jul 2014 #29
Excellent point. nt valerief Jul 2014 #26
I said that HockeyMom Jul 2014 #27
I Claim No Particular Originality For The Thought, Ma'am The Magistrate Jul 2014 #28
Exactly. GeorgeGist Jul 2014 #30
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Nothing Stops Hobby Lobby...