I don’t see what’s so wrong with this.

From the letters to the editor in today’s Chronicle re: Hobby Lobby:

I thought we had achieved the quintessential absurdity with “corporations are people,” to be topped only by “money is speech.” But, no!

Our blessed federal court system has now reached new heights. A corporation with religious beliefs!…

What madness! Our top legal brains are destroying us with childish word games.

Childish word games? What the hell? It’s not childish word games; it’s acknowledging basic reality. Hobby Lobby is still a privately held company. So yes, forcing the company to go against its religious beliefs by providing birth control is indeed infringing on the owners’ First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion. The people not acknowledging any of this are only doing so because it goes against their particular political ideology. So who are the ones playing the “childish word games” here?

About these ads

Tags:

3 Responses to “I don’t see what’s so wrong with this.”

  1. Sabra Morse Onstott Says:

    If privately-held corporations cannot reflect the religious beliefs of their owners, the Chik-Fil-A boycott is invalidated.

    • southtexaspistolero Says:

      So it is. But trying to get consistency from liberals is like trying to get blood from the proverbial turnip.

  2. Dwight Brown Says:

    Why does this have to be reduced to an issue of religion?

    If you, as an employer, don’t want to offer birth control, for whatever reason, shouldn’t that be your right? And shouldn’t you expect to have to deal with the consequences: higher premiums for increased maternity care, not being able to attract talented people to work for you, etc.?

    If you, as an employee, want to have birth control available to you as part of your health coverage, shouldn’t you be able to negotiate that with your employer? And shouldn’t you expect to have to deal with the consequences, like higher premiums?

    Why should the government be inserting itself into the employer/employee relationship?

    (Thinking about it some more from the other side, though, you could also apply these same arguments to the Texas state laws mandating coverage for “equipment, supplies, medication, and self-management training” for people with diabetes. What’s the difference?)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 98 other followers

%d bloggers like this: