Birth Control

Why Is It So Hard to Understand Government Shouldn't Force Employers to Purchase Birth Control or Permit Guns on Premises?

|

america!
jpgmag.com

The (leftie) internet went bonkers yesterday over the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby  decision, a narrow ruling that only let "closely held" corporations whose owners had a religious objection to paying for certain kind of contraceptives (abortifacients) off the hook from Obamacare's "contraceptive mandate."  Employees, of course, would still be free to purchase supplemental insurance to cover birth control and to see their doctor to get a prescription for birth control. They can't purchase birth control over the counter but that's not because of the Supreme Court or employers with objections—it's because the federal government prohibits the sale of birth control over the counter.

Nevertheless for a certain kind of spouter of partisan talking points, the Supreme Court ruling—that the government could not, in fact, bully people into doing something if those people have religious objections—was more evidence of the "war on women" Democrats plan to keep running on.

Meanwhile in Georgia, a new gun bill that permits lawfully licensed residents to carry their firearms into a wide range of "public accommodations" (like bars) and actual government buildings goes into effect today*. Opponents of the bill, generally liberals, tend to be the same people who opposed the Hobby Lobby ruling, while conservatives who applauded the Hobby Lobby ruling for protecting religious liberty applaud Georgia's law for protecting their Second Amendment rights.

Libertarians have to laugh or they'd cry. The partisan break on Hobby Lobby and Georgia's gun law doesn't make sense if principles mattered. After all, if an employer has a right not to be coerced by the government to purchase something for an employee, that same employer ought to have a right not to be coerced by the government to permit something on his property. Whether the specific objections are religious shouldn't even matter—either you have a right to run your workplace and business as you please or it belongs to the government.  For too many partisan ideologues, liberal and conservative, the latter applies. Their political preferences trump any lip service to principles.

*UPDATE: The law allows private property owners to "exclude or eject" people carrying firearms. Private property owners shouldn't need a law to let them exclude who they want, nor one to require specific kinds of compensation.

NEXT: Ukraine: Fighting Resumes as President Vows to 'Liberate Our Lands'

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Ugh. It’s astounding to see so many people who call themselves educated believe that by not paying for someone’s BC, you are denying them access. It’s mind boggling and sad.

    1. Correction: Not paying for abortifacients is the same thing as denying them access. Hobby Lobby provides contraceptives in its health plan, but not drugs to induce miscarriages.

      Hobby Lobby rules your ovaries with an iron fist.

      1. Other correction: “drugs believed by some to possibly induce miscarriages, or prevent implantation of a fertilized egg” would be more accurate in the case of most of the specific drugs and devices they didn’t want to cover.

        Otherwise, yeah.

        1. Yeah, they are wrong about the drugs, but it doesn’t matter if they are wrong.

      2. That is absurd. It is not the same thing denying them access. They can walk into any pharmacy and buy the pills, and they can go to their doctor and get an IUD. Hobby Lobby is not asking anything that would prevent that.

        If you really think that, then would you agree that you are denying me my right to travel because you won’t buy me a car? If not, what is the difference?

        1. If you really think that, then would you agree that you are denying me my right to travel because you won’t buy me a car?

          Absolutely. Also, by not buying you a sarcasm detector, he is denying you the right to read posts correctly. The evil bastard.

      1. I don’t see why someone couldn’t make all their employees sign contracts stating that they wouldn’t use electricity on Saturdays. No sane people would work for them, and no woman who wants insurance that pays for those types of birth control should work for Hobby Lobby, but that’s beside the point, isn’t it?

        1. You anti-choice zealot!! They should be forced to operate their business on Saturdays.

          1. By choosing to form a kkkorpoation, they have surrendered their right to choose who they do business with, how they freely transact with other persons in a non-coercive manner, and to have Saturdays off.

            1. I have lots of people making that argument to me. If you incorporate your company, you are now a slave to the state, bitch. While I agree that incorporation is a form of protectionism, especially for “closely held” ones and there has to be some reciprocation, but there are limits.

            2. This is actually why I don’t have much sympathy for businesses who bring these sorts of suits. In principle I totally agree that the government should stay out the affairs of everyone. But incorporation is essentially a package of goodies from the government. On the one hand they don’t mind collecting all those goodies, but on the other they complain about the requirements imposed by the hand that feeds.

        2. Exactly! Excellent reply…

      2. Wow. That’s the dumbest paragraph I’ve ever seen my life.

        1. You must be pretty young.

      3. Do Orthodox Jews even care if other people don’t keep the Sabbath?

        1. The nice thing about them is they make no effort to convert anyone.

          1. There is a girl in our office who is. Keeps to herself, does good work.

            There were liberals in my last office. Overbearing, would not shut the fuck up.

            1. Yup. I’ve had that with past clients. Especially obnoxious was the foreign national who couldn’t stop orgasming anytime Obama’s name was mentioned. Foreign. Another client installed a six foot portrait of Obama in the cafeteria. I was afraid he’d start mandatory worship services or something.

            2. Part of being in a cult is trying your darndest to bring everyone into it.

        2. No. In fact, my sister was living in the Orthodox Jewish part of Atlanta (she’s not Jewish). On a Saturday evening, her neighbor asked if she’d com over and turn off some lights that they had left on accidentally.

          1. So in order not to do any work, they put on there outdoor shoes and jacket then walked to the neighbors house, knocked on the door, asked them to come back to their house to turn of the light.

            And this is not considered work?

            Work: to achieve a goal with the least amount of energy spent.

        3. At least half my neighbors in a Philly suburb are Orthodox Jews. Never experienced them trying to change anyone else’s behavior or seeming to even care what I do with my time. Good neighbors.

          1. That is outstanding.

            I’m going to see if I can convince my neighbors to convert to Orthodox Judaism.

        4. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01…..oklyn.html

          “The man said, ‘Do the neighborhood a favor and take it out of the window,’ ” the store’s manager recalled. ” ‘We’re trying to safeguard our community.’ ”

          In many neighborhoods, a store owner might shrug off such a call. But on Lee Avenue, the commercial spine of Hasidic Williamsburg, the warning carried an implied threat ? comply with community standards or be shunned. It is a potent threat in a neighborhood where shadowy, sometimes self-appointed modesty squads use social and economic leverage to enforce conformity.

          1. Shunning is organized boycotting you don’t agree with?

            Any like minded group of devoted people are going to be a potent force when upset by something. I can’t image a Chick-fil-A in the heart of liburbia fairing to well.

            1. Disagree. Conservatives give twice as much to charity and volunteer twice as much. Ask a liberal sometime what products are produced by Koch industries…you’ll find out pretty quickly there is a disconnect between their beliefs and their actions.

              1. And there are lots of Chickfila’s in liberal enclaves.

      4. I saw someone on FBook say:

        I’m looking forward to the first challenge to this case in which someone working for a Jehovah’s Witness learns that they can’t get an emergency blood transfusion after an accident involving major blood loss.

        (This guy’s a college professor, BTW)

        Then someone later said we should just get rid of the 1st Amendment. That’s the one that’s causing all these problems.

        1. From the 24/7 Twitter roundup on the sidebar:

          The Constitution is a dumb old deal between a bunch of dead dudes and we should get rid of it

          It’s amazing how many “liberals” want to scrap the first amendment.

          1. Lotta mask-slippage lately.

        2. He should try reading the decision instead of getting his talking points from MSNBC.

          This decision concerns only the contraceptive mandate and should not be understood to hold that all insurance-coverage mandates, e.g., for vaccinations or blood transfusions, must necessarily fall if they conflict with an employer’s religious beliefs.

          1. Which makes it pretty hypocritical, don’t you think?

      5. A better analogy would be an HHS regulation that required all employers to provide ham sandwiches for lunch.

        And I love it that the decision is based on the RFRA, which was written and passed by a Democratic congress, and signed by a Democratic president.

        1. I don’t think the Congress was Democratic. Maybe the Senate, definitely the President. But the RFRA sounds like Contract with America legislation.

          1. Well is passed the senate 97-3, if I read correctly.

          2. It went into effect in November 1993…so it’s D’s all the way down.

          3. It was 56-44 (Democratic) in the Senate and 258-176-1 (Democratic) in the House.

        2. It was a response to Smith, which was a case about spiritual peyote.

          1. Yeah, but the law was meant for those who partake of peyote for religious purposes, it was never meant for Christians!

      6. Does this hypothetical Jewish-owned company pay for its employees vehicles and electric bills? Because if it does, then it is an apt comparison to the Hobby Lobby case. And they would have the right, as part of that agreement, to mandate its employees not use those resources on certain days.

        1. What if there was a law that said that the Jewish owned company HAD to buy their employees vehicles and pay their electric bills?

      7. What would happen if there was a Jewish couple who didn’t want to pay their employees in pork coupons? They are denying the employees access to pork!

      8. No, it is the same as your Jewish boss refusing to pay for electricity in you house on a Saturday.

    2. My employer denies me access to yachts and monocles. 🙁

      How will I ever be a true libertarian?

      1. You can’t. We’re all very wealthy.

  2. I’ll look up the Georgia law but the state permitting carry into places where it was restricted by law before is not the same as preventing property owners from prohibiting firearm carry. I would think, and I will check, that a property owner or business manager may ask anyone carrying to leave their property with the weapon and any refusal to leave becomes trespassing.

    1. Yeah, that how I understood that law as well. However, I will not check for myself and instead allow you to do it for me.

      1. Damn free riding libertarians.

        1. We should subsidize Daniel’s research since there are positive public externalities!

      1. I’m so glad you posted this now and not three hours from now.

      2. WTF Ed? Can you double check the bills you’re commenting about?

        Now I’m reading the entire thing and can’t find any evidence of what’s being alledged.

        1. “The Right Does it Too”

          None Dare Call it Cosmotarian.

    2. Yes, my skimming seems to indicate that a private property owner (or the person managing private property) can “exclude or eject” someone with a gun. There’s a similar right for those running churches.

      http://www.legis.ga.gov/Legisl…..144825.pdf

      1. Oh, yeah, kilroy was here and provided the link already.

        1. Kilroy was here!

          http://upload.wikimedia.org/wi…..morial.jpg

    3. In FL, they clarified that the inside of your car is not the employer’s property, but a distinct bubble of your own private property. Employers can prohibit guns on their premises, but not in my car, even if the car be parked on their premises. Except for Disney. Literally.

      1. In FL, they clarified that the inside of your car is not the employer’s property, but a distinct bubble of your own private property.

        That’s absolutely ludicrous.

        By that logic, if I drive my RV up on to your driveway, you can’t make me leave. Because I’m in a bubble of my own private property and not on your property at all.

        1. Not really.

          If the employer *knows* you have a gun, then he can ask you to remove your vehicle.

          What he can’t do, is categorically decide what you can and can’t carry in your vehicle, nor can he search it without permission (looking in the window is fine).

          The inside of your car is semi-inviolate, but *where* you park it is still under the same restrictions as before.

  3. Not exactly. The states unlike the feds have general police power. So, Georgia doing this is not the same as the feds mandating birth control.

    Beyond that, keeping and bearing arms is a constitutionally protected right. I would agree that people’s property rights and rights to associate with whomever they choose outweigh my constitutional right to carry a weapon when it comes to their property. That said, if it is the case that most or a large minority of businesses do not allow and will not do business with someone carrying a weapon, I think you can truthfully say that people’s rights to keep and bear arms have been effectively restricted.

    I don’t think you can say that about not covering birth control via insurance. If a business doesn’t allow guns, I can’t buy my way out of that. My right to carry a gun is restricted. I can’t go there and exercise my rights. If my employer doesn’t cover birth control my right is only restricted by my ability to pay. And indeed, people who don’t have health insurance are equally restricted. I don’t see how “it costs money” is in anyway a meaningful restriction on a right. Whereas, you can’t exercise this right in most or many public places really is.

    I still don’t support the Georgia law. But the law is not analogous to the contraception mandate.

    1. It depends on what exactly the Georgia law says. If it says that property owners may now allow concealed carry where it was previously illegal, that’s good. If it says that property owners may now not kick people off their property for carrying guns, that’s bad.

      1. The law previously stated that it was illegal to carry firearms in any establishment that served alcohol, in any church, or in any government facility. What changed is that now a person can carry in a restaurant that serves alcohol as long as that person isn’t consuming alcohol and it isn’t prohibited by the property owner, one can carry a weapon in church, as long as it isn’t prohibited by the church, and one can carry in some, but not all government buildings. Property owners still have the right to prohibit weapons on their property.

    2. I think you can truthfully say that people’s rights to keep and bear arms have been effectively restricted.

      In that case it has not been restricted by the government, which is the purpose of the Second. Hopefully not too pedantic.

      1. Exactly. When other private citizens personal freedoms accumulate in a way that EFFECTIVELY restricts the practical use of your rights, you have no beef.

        This is like Eliot Roger complaining that the female gender’s use of choice leaves him a virgin.

        If other ppl don’t want you carrying a bazooka into their store that’s too fucking bad for you. they own the property and control its disposal, NOT YOU.

        1. So when a large group of people who want to use that “freedom of association” to not eat lunch with blacks tell you not to sit at their lunch counter, that’s cool? Which constitutional rights cross the threshold?

          1. If that large group of people you refer to want to open their own lunch counter that is one thing.

            If a large group of people want to tell someone else who he may serve at his lunch counter that is a different thing.

          2. The anti-black discrimination was encoded into statutes, known as the Jim Crow Laws. It wasn’t the merchants who wanted to discriminate, it was literally against the law for blacks to go there. Merchants, in general, couldn’t care less what color their customers’ skin is, as long as their money is green.

    3. That said, if it is the case that most or a large minority of businesses do not allow and will not do business with someone carrying a weapon, I think you can truthfully say that people’s rights to keep and bear arms have been effectively restricted.

      Well, you could say that if you don’t believe in free association. I have a constitutional right to preach the coming of the Great Old Ones, but not the constitutional right to do so in your living room or business. The point is who is doing the restricting.

      If the government is doing the banning or placing impediments on these businesses then I would say there is a point there. If John’s House of Bibles and Porn doesn’t want people bringing guns on their private property I don’t see the case.

      1. We are balancing your right to free association with my right to bear arms. Now you come down on the side of free association. And good for you.

        But wherever you come down, the debate about the gun law is not in anyway analogous to the contraception mandate. There, there is no competing constitutional right. There is no constitutional right to insurance provided birth control. We are just forcing you to pay for something because the government likes it that way.

        That is my point. The point is not whether the Georgia law is good or bad. I said like three times in the my post how I didn’t agree with it, which you apparently missed. The point is that the Georgia law is about balancing two competing rights and the contraception mandate is about infringing on someone’s rights for a preference rather than a right. That means the Georgia gun law is not analogous to the contraception mandate.

        1. You have no right to carry a gun on my property unless I say you do.

          1. My body isn’t your property.

            1. Talk about non-sequitur.

              1. I don’t know if non sequitur even covers this. This is so fallacious there might not be a name for it.

                1. “I don’t know if non sequitur even covers this”

                  It shouldn’t since it’s a perfectly valid observation.

                  And you have yet to address the very real idea that I am not your property, and the gun isn’t on your property, it’s concealed on my person.

                  Your property rights don’t breach m,y 2nd amendment rights.

                  Screeching “non sequitur” like a fucking idiot doesn’t change that in any way.

                  1. Oh, so you want to make it a straw man now. Your 2nd amendment rights don’t breach my property rights. If I don’t want to allow guns on my property, you can choose not to come onto my property. Rephrasing the same poor argument as a different fallacy doesn’t make it any less poor.

                    1. And unless you are willing to put up metal detectors and (armed) guards with search power, I don’t give much of a damn. Look up the meaning of “concealed”.

            2. “My body isn’t your property.”

              When I bury your corpse in my backyard, it is.

            3. It’s a Wagon Wheel!|7.1.14 @ 1:36PM|#

              My body isn’t your property.”

              You are right. And since it’s not my property I should not be legally liable for it’s maintenance or upkeep.

          2. Ok. Then every private business can (and might) prohibit firearms on their premises. So where does that leave concealed carry permit holders, especially when a nut starts shooting up a mall?

            1. It leaves them with fairly strong evidence to convince mall owners not to prohibit concealed carry on their premises.

            2. I don’t see what you’re getting at here.

              1. I’m playing out the scenario where anyone can exclude another from carrying a weapon on their own property. It’s not implausible that in the future a majority of private property owners (i.e., Target, Wal Mart, SBux, etc) decide to prohibit gun owners from carrying on their property. Which would effectively neuter the right to bear arms if enough property owners banned carrying.

                1. I made essentially the same argument and they failed to understand it.

                  If I own my body, carrying a weapon on my body doesn’t violate your property rights. I’m not your property.

                  I don’t understand the difficulty some are having with this very simple proposition.

                  1. I don’t understand the difficulty some are having with this very simple proposition.

                    Would you say that a person has a right to keep you from coming on their property? If so, then you are acknowledging that your right to your body does not trump their right to dictate the use of their property.

                    A business owner can therefore set terms and conditions for the use of their property. They can say that you aren’t allowed to sit in their booths without buying something. They can say that you aren’t allowed to come on their property drunk
                    They can say that you aren’t allowed to come on their property and shout racial epithets at other customers.

                    And that means they can also say that you aren’t allowed to carry a gun on their property.

                    None of the above is a restriction on YOUR body. You are free to do whatever you want with your body. They are just not obliged to let you do it on their land.

                    1. “They are just not obliged to let you do it on their land.”

                      This is the problem. I’m not doing anything on their land.

                      I don’t recognize a landowner’s right to tell me what I can keep in my pockets or under my clothing just because of their claim to the ownership of the property I’m standing on.

                    2. And more importantly, I don’t recognize a landowner’s right to elevate their property rights over my rights of self defense.

                    3. I don’t recognize a landowner’s right to tell me what I can keep in my pockets or under my clothing just because of their claim to the ownership of the property I’m standing on.

                      Can they tell you that you aren’t allowed on their land?

                      Can they tell you that you aren’t allowed on their land without their permission?

                      Can they withhold permission unless you pay them money?

                      Your money is your property, so is it a violation of your rights to make surrendering that property a condition of using their land? Of course not. It is what we call a VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE.

                    4. Do they have a right to go through your pockets.

                      That’s what we’re talking about. You avoid that because at it’s heart, it’s across the line, but necessary for you to be right.

                      Here’s what you seem to be having trouble understanding. I consider my right to defend myself above your property rights.

                      Nothing you have said changes that. At all. I don’t recognize your right to tell me I can’t defend myself.

                      We can disagree about the existence of your right in that regard, but I don’t recognize it, nor claim it.

                      And the bald assertion that it simply “is” because “property rights” is interesting. The idea that not dying trumps your property rights to someone never even occurred to you.

                    5. And the bald assertion that it simply “is” because “property rights” is interesting. The idea that not dying trumps your property rights to someone never even occurred to you.

                      This is an interesting proposition, so let’s play it out.

                      You come to my shop and I tell you that you are not allowed to come in. Are you allowed to force your way in? Even if it means I might die?

                    6. Stay off the property then.

                    7. I don’t recognize a landowner’s right to tell me what I can keep in my pockets or under my clothing just because of their claim to the ownership of the property I’m standing on…..I don’t recognize a landowner’s right to elevate their property rights over my rights of self defense.

                      So you do not believe in property rights. Gotcha

                    8. Seriously? If I own property, I can permit or deny your access to that property based on any fucking thing I feel like. Bring a firearm onto my property after being informed that I don’t permit it, and you’re going to jail for trespassing.

                    9. Put up a “No Niggers” sign in front of your business and see what happens to you.

                  2. That’s not the same argument. Duke’s is a legitimate argument about the possibility of effectively neutering the 2nd amendment through the mass cooperation of property owners, which is extraordinarily unlikely, though theoretically possible. Yours is a simplistic fallacy.

          3. Well, no.

            I have the right to defend myself. I have the right to bear arms and I have paid for the return of the right to carry a concealed weapon that only I know about.

            I am under no obligation to tell you that I am bearing arms.

            1. I am under no obligation to tell you that I am bearing arms

              And I am under no obligation to allow you into my house or business without first submitting to an x-ray. If you consider that too much bother, then we both have a remedy to our collective situation: we don’t have to associate.

        2. Individual rights do not conflict. If business owners, even many business owners do not allow me to have a gun on their property, that is not an imposition of my individual rights. None of these individuals are compelling me to frequent their place of business. So how can they be imposing on my individual rights?

          In a free society, this would open a business opportunity, though, for those businesses who WOULD allow people to bear arms. Especially, if many businesses do not. All those who feel strongly about it could do businesses and thus they would have a market edge over other businesses.

          1. All those who feel strongly about it would frequent these businesses and give them a competitive advantage for this niche of consumers.

            1. Somebody gets it. Because the right to keep and bear arms is not a positive “right,” it does not conflict with the right to own property.

              1. It works the other way too.

                Why are you having such a hard time with this.

                1. It works the other way too.
                  Why are you having such a hard time with this.

                  Yes, you are right. It works the other way. The business owner is not allowed to come to your house and force you to take your gun off.

                  Nevertheless, as owner of property, you have every right to set conditions for someone using it. You can require that people not mention the Detroit Redwings or wear Oakland Raiders shirts. This isn’t an imposition on their rights. It is an expression of your right to associate with whomever you see fit.

                  1. ” The business owner is not allowed to come to your house and force you to take your gun off.”

                    But apparently you think they are allowed to rustle through your pockets and do so if you happen to be on a piece of property they own.

                    1. Night clubs and arenas have exercised that right for some time now.

                    2. That’s not a right, it’s something both parties agree to.

                      And it’s occurrence, and the cowing of others, doesn’t make it a right either.

                    3. And really, I specifically said having their pockets rifled through, which never happens, not at clubs, arenas or museums, which makes your response especially assholish.

                      Get this so you can stop responding to me. I don’t recognize as a right of property ownership the ability to disarm me at your leisure, specifically when my arms are impossible to notice.

                      You don’t have that right. There’s no counter for you.

                    4. You don’t have a right to enter my property without my permission. As a condition of me granting permission, I may require that you agree not bring any firearms on the premises. If you violate that agreement, I can eject you from my property, and/or have you arrested for trespassing. That is my right as a property owner, and when you come on my property, you’re subject to my rules. If you don’t agree, then simply stay the fuck off my property. If you insist that your right to have a firearm on my property outweighs my rights as the property owner, you’ll probably be leaving in either a police car, or a coroner’s van. Why is this so difficult to understand?

                    5. //and/or have you arrested for trespassing

                      this is where I have a problem and where I tend to side with Wagon Wheel here

                      So, by exercising a right I supposedly have, I can be charged with trespassing?

                      How do you think this would play out? The only way a property owner would know I had a gun is if I had to use it to save my life. So some guy, who ignored the “no guns sign” and went to the mall carrying a gun anyway, saves his own life and the life of other shoppers from a robber or a madman shooter, and then he gets charged with trespassing? Don’t you see the problem with that?

                      Without getting more into the details of rights and how they’re a collection of all the details of who can and can’t do what and how that’s enforced, one of my other big problems is that it IS very likely that large groups of owners will ban guns from their properties and effectively outlaw guns themselves. Most corporate types/people are asses and believe irrationally that control, compliance, and conformity are universally good policies, and have those leftist tendencies. They’re too stupid to understancd people aren’t retarded and accomplish things through aggregate work rather than slavish devotion

                    6. and museums.

                    7. But apparently you think they are allowed to rustle through your pockets and do so if you happen to be on a piece of property they own.

                      As a condition of using their property, abso-fucking-lutely. Ever been to a night club?

                      Do I think a business has the right to invite you onto their property and then randomly single you out for a frisking? Of course not.

                      Instead, I would think that the business should be required to tell you AT ANY TIME what their policies are, and if they choose to demand proof that you are in compliance with those policies. And at that time you have an option of providing the proof (through a search) and saying “Fuck you, I’ll take my business elsewhere”. At that point, there may be complexities- say if you’ve already paid for services not yet rendered- but it is easy for contract law to work out how that unwinds.

                    8. It’s a wagon wheel, you have the perfect handle.
                      BTW, my property my rules if you don’t like it stay the fuck off. Got it?

        3. “But wherever you come down, the debate about the gun law is not in anyway analogous to the contraception mandate”

          This is correct, but that doesn’t mean that progressive won’t make their false equivalency claim of hypocrisy forever and ever because contraception is good and guns are bad.

    4. That said, if it is the case that most or a large minority of businesses do not allow and will not do business with someone carrying a weapon, I think you can truthfully say that people’s rights to keep and bear arms have been effectively restricted.

      I don’t think there is a common law right to carry everywhere, just on your own property and in public.

    5. “I don’t think you can say that about not covering birth control via insurance.”

      What about a whorehouse?

  4. People exercising their 2nd amendment rights in ACTUAL government buildings?!

    /fans self furiously

  5. I can’t believe liberal/progs who think it’s just and fair that other people should pay for other people’s BC. Never mind that some of whom don’t want to pay on moral grounds.

    What’s wrong with them? I know. We could write a book – or two.

    Just astounding.

    1. But I already knew the progs were stupid. So that doesn’t surprise me. I expect more from reason. I can’t believe they don’t see the difference between making you pay for something and making you respect my exercise of a constitutionally guaranteed right.

      1. The analogy is improper in that the GA law allows property owners to restrict firearms.

        However, I disagree that me not allowing you to bear arms in my own establishment infringes on your rights, any more than you not allowing me to set up a church in your front yard.

  6. Buy Ed, it’s #NOTMYBOSSBUSSINESS! Because even though government is interceding between two private contracting parties and arbitrarily imposing a cost on an employer, he still should not have any say as to what he does with his property.

    Feminism is being free from the inconveniences of making decisions for yourself like weather or not you need a healthcare plan that includes abortofacients.

  7. The (leftie) internet went bonkers yesterday over the Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby decision, a narrow ruling that only let “closely held” corporations whose owners had a religious objection to paying for certain kind of contraceptives (abortifacients) off the hook from Obamacare’s “contraceptive mandate.”

    I’ll admit to largely avoiding coverage yesterday in the MSM, but has this distinction been made clear in news reports?

    Becasue all I’ve heard from lefties is ARCGLBARGLECONTRACEPTION – BLERGLEWARONWOMENDERPYDERP!!1!

    1. A rather important disticntion.

      The Green family has no moral objection to the use of 16 of 20 preventive contraceptives required in the mandate, and Hobby Lobby will continue its longstanding practice of covering these preventive contraceptives for its employees. However, the Green family cannot provide or pay for four potentially life-threatening drugs and devices. These drugs include Plan B and Ella, the so-called morning-after pill and the week-after pill. Covering these drugs and devices would violate their deeply held religious belief that life begins at the moment of conception, when an egg is fertilized.

      http://www.becketfund.org/hobbylobby/

      1. Also IUDs, and the arm implant rod.

        1. Also IUDs, and the arm implant rod.

          Got a citation for that? Not saying it isn’t true but I haven’t seen anything, yet, which supports this claim.

  8. EK, could you point to the provision of the Georgia law that *requires* private property owners to let people with guns on their property? I couldn’t find it, but I may have skimmed past it.

    1. There isn’t one. Ed just thinks guns are icky and dangerous.

  9. Maybe a fellow Floridian can correct me if I’m remembering this wrong, but a few years ago Florida was considering a bill that – IIRC – would override the property rights of an employer and prevent them from banning their employees from bringing guns on their property (for example, Bubba could not park his car at the pulp wood plant during his shift if his rifle was in the truck).

    I asked a co-worker at the time what he thought of the law and he was all for it because he was a big “supporter of my 2nd amendment rights.” The concept of private property never entered his head.

    1. Same mentality as people who think that “freedom of speech” means your boss can’t fire you for saying stupid or offensive things at work.

      Some people just can’t absorb that the Bill of Rights is there to limit government infringement on your rights of free speech or gun ownership or privacy

    2. I put what I know about it upthread, here.

      1. thanks!

  10. Were the stylesheets borked for everyone else?

    I sent an email to the squirrels and it fixed itself while I was sending.

    1. It was hosed for me too for a few minutes.

    2. It was for me. Just cleared up a couple of minutes ago.

    3. They’re alternately working and borking.

    4. I had the misfortune of having the proxy cache the borked stylesheets.

      Ah well, protected from Facebook, have to live with the cache.

    5. Was for me for a few minutes. Thought it was my no-damn-good work network.

    6. I ended up with four posts over on the O-care thread even though I only ‘submitted’ two the other were “previewed’.
      My contribution is falling rapidly.

  11. So have we sufficiently piled on Ed for not actually reading the bill?

    1. No correction yet so I’d say no.

  12. Want birth control? Go buy it. Nobody is stopping you.

    1. Nobody is stopping you.

      Except maybe the pharmacist.

      1. “Except maybe the pharmacist.”

        The other day I went to buy some cheese at this store. The store didn’t have any cheese. So I went to another fucking store to buy the cheese. Maybe I should have called my attorney instead.

        1. The other day I went to buy some cheese at this store. The store didn’t have any cheese. So I went to another fucking store to buy the cheese. Maybe I should have called my attorney instead.

          Maybe you should’ve called your mother and chewed her out for drinking so heavily during her pregnancy.

          I’ll use small words. Oral BC is prescription only. If you go to the store without a prescription, a pharmacist will stop you from buying BC. In EVERY store. I do not believe it should be prescription only, but it is a FACT that it currently IS.

          1. You were responding to:

            “Want birth control? Go buy it. Nobody is stopping you.”

            Just an FYI, there are non-oral methods of birth control. Hope I didn’t type too fast for you.

            1. What are you two arguing about?

            2. there are non-oral methods of birth control

              Nope, you’re absolutely right. I tripped on the BC is synonymous with The Pill.

              I apologize for being dickish.

              1. And I apologize for typing like an uncaffeinated goon.

                I tripped on the phrase “BC” is frequently being synonymous with “The Pill”.

                1. Cool. I was being a dick too. I get too worked up over the whole free shit thing in general.

            3. I thought “oral” was birth control?

              1. That and anal.

          2. Of course the doctor’s visit is still covered by the ACA and is still “free” preventive care, and nobody is saying they aren’t going to cover it.

          3. That’s the government’s fault, not the pharmacy’s. If a pharmacy sold the pill without a prescription, they’d be in for a world of hurt. Dick.

            1. I gotta say in reference to the above sub-thread, it actually is a good idea for the pill to be prescription only. It is a serious enough drug to warrant it. For most women most of the time, a small write-up of the potential side effects, pharmacology, what to expect etc. is sufficient, but there are a lot of weird complications and weird conditions beforehand that could come up, that are frequent enough that it’s an issue.

              I mean, you’re talking about seriously manipulating the body’s hormones. The effects can be significant.

        2. I went to the store, but the store had received a letter from my boss saying that I was not to use HIS MONEY to buy cheddar.

    2. To be fair, it would greatly increase access if government would allow it to be old OTC at drug stores.

      But that sounds dangerously like deregulation, which is always bad, right?

      1. Of course…because people can’t be expected to make those kinds of decisions on their own without enlightened, qualified gatekeepers there to guide them and give them the right answers.

    3. That was my response to most of the people who complained about the horrors of the Hobby Lobby decision.

      Which of course led them to transition into the rationale that not everyone could afford the minimal cost it took to buy birth control. Which led me to ask why we should make it easier for people who can’t afford condoms to have consequence-free sex. Which led them to claim that poor people are basically just animals who can’t control their base emotions and are helpless to change their fate without the enlightened state intervening to protect them.

      Once you wrap your head around the inherent god complex of liberals, you’ll understand why arguing that people should pay for things themselves is never an option. Even though your approach is the correct one.

      1. The actual point is that birth control is not just used to prevent pregnancy. Don’t any of you have any females in your lives?

        1. The actual point is that the case was about government infringement on a religious belief and had nothing to do with utilitarian outcomes. That’s why your Idiot King lost yet another case in the Supreme Court…because he’s too fucking stupid to understand how that works.

          Kind of like you.

          1. Also the 4 types of BC at issue are not used for other purposes (2 emergency pills, IUDs, implant rod). But clearly no one wants to talk about the facts.

            Hell, good luck finding anyone who actually read the opinion or even knows the facts of the case. I’ve read countless posts by ppl who think these women won’t still get copayment free BC (spoiler: they will).

            1. I hear you. George Takei (whose commentary I generally respect) went off because he appears to be under the impression that this decision somehow outlawed all birth control coverage for everyone.

              Mention the words birth control and liberals become the dumbest human beings alive, incapable of reading anything for comprehension.

        2. Depends on the type of BC. Hobby Lobby was still paying for the pill, which is commonly used to treat menstrual irregularities besides just being used to prevent pregnancy.

          Beyond that we’ve been making hormonal contraceptives for about 55 years now. They’re insanely cheap to produce and would be cheaper OTC than most insurance prescription copays. I have a table of CalChoice compliant Gold and Silver plans in front of me (open enrollment at work, yay!) and copays are $15-20 dollars for generic or $35-50 formulary (after a $250-600 deductible).

        3. Yes, Plan B and IUDs have countless medical uses. Now go back to sucking off your daddy.

        4. If Tony got out more, he’d notice that some women (or “females,” as he respectfully describes them) are in support of Hobby Lobby’s religious freedom:

          http://www.lifenews.com/2014/0…..s-victory/

          1. Most of the women I talked to about the decision didn’t think it was a big deal because they bought their own birth control.

            Strangely, they didn’t like the idea of involving their employers with their sex lives.

            1. While a few electronic medical record systems are ahead of the curve, even non-insurance medical transactions were still reported back to the insurance companies. One of the ACA provisions coming up is that EMR systems should be able to keep cash transactions separate from data reported back to insurance companies, but I don’t think it’s come into force yet.

          2. Tony speaks for all women when he says all they want is a little birth control abortifacients. There is literally nothing else on their minds.

        5. The actual point is that nobody should be forced to pay for any medication.

        6. I’m pretty sure that IUDs and the morning after pill don’t have other uses.

        7. It’s okay dude, I used to drool on myself too.

    4. There was a comment at SF Gate (which is a lefty site) where the commenter was really on top of his game.
      He asked ‘since he worshiped the FSM and conservatives should die, would the court allow him to withhold providing med insurance for his employees?!’
      I’m sure he considered that a real stumper for those who don’t think an employer should be forced to provide anything.

      1. This case seems to be exposing all the idiots for what they are. People all over the place are spouting off about this fucking ruling without having an inkling of what the fuck they are talking about.

        1. And this is different from any other issue how?

  13. I hate twatter, but I realize some people have mastered it. This is one such case

    1. That’s pretty fucking awesome.

      I have been so tempted to post something snarky on Facebook, but I just can’t be bothered to get into pointless low-information bickering.

      1. It looks like the Proglodytes have all become Nic Cage

  14. Well allow me re-prog-tort?! =

    Yeah!? Well, your only ‘principles’ are for like, whatever’s best for the *corporations* maaaaaan…..and your plutocrat over lords! You don’t HAVE any principles dude, because corporations arent people, and you obviously hate women in all their glorious personifestations

  15. either you have a right to run your workplace and business as you please or it belongs to the government.

    That’s a stark either/or that will and should always leave libertarians disappointed. You can’t run your business with child labor or by killing every third employee as an incentive. There is no absolute right to run a business as you please, and there shouldn’t be. So it looks like we’re all agents of government.

    1. Oh, so you needed them to state, “in accordance with the NAP and closely hewing to the Constitution and BoR”?

      1. Don’t feed the troll. It never works out well for anyone who does.

        1. Thank you for the reminder. Stupidity should never be rewarded with attention.

    2. actually there is a right. Society may deem child labor and murder illegal (as it should be) but to say that people won’t do as they please is na?ve.

      Go to Compton and ask the crack dealer to make sure his employees fill out their I-9. Then, enjoy getting shot in the face. why? Because the dealer’s business is his, and his alone. He doesn’t need permission to make money. Nor do you. Harm no one, and society should let you run your affairs as you please. Liberty 101

      1. better yet, consider: govt doesn’t create business. Voluntary human action does.

        I wanna buy a kayak. Someone somewhere makes one. Sick, we’re in business. That literally does not involve any government, any third party, at all. Kayak maker gets money, I get a kayak, and damnit everyone is happy. You nosey-rosey government worshipping types seem to think that there is a place in that interaction for you to butt in. There isn’t. No one got hurt. No one “exploited” anyone. Why do you feel that it is your place to bother me or the kayak maker? who gave you that right? Who do you think you are?

        1. But who will collect the taxes?

        2. Hey! Was that kayak inspected by the watercraft safety board? Was is made of toxic materials or were any toxic materials used in its manufacture? Were waste products disposed of properly? Did you pay your sales tax!?

        3. Mr. Big Stuff, that’s who I think I am!

    3. You can’t run your business with child labor or by killing every third employee as an incentive.

      In other news, straw men are still made of straw.

      1. I’ve found killing every third orphan to be counter-productive.

        Stick with the Jack Welch rule and only kill the 10% who were least productive.

  16. “UPDATE: The law allows private property owners to “exclude or eject” people carrying firearms, Private property owners shouldn’t need a law to let them exclude who they want, nor one to require specific kinds of compensation.”

    But in the real world they *did* need a law, since earlier statutes banned gun-carriers from private property even with the owner’s consent. So Ga basically repealed these restrictions and let the matter up to the property owner.

    How can this be spun as a bad thing?

  17. The law in GA doesn’t force anyone to allow guns on their premises. It decriminalizes the carry of firearms into these premises, and treats firearms the same as any other item that a shop owner may permit or not permit. If a coffee shop has a sign on the window that says “no tie-dye T-shirts” and you wear one into the shop, you haven’t committed a crime. A cop will not automatically arrest you for wearing a tye-died T-shirt in the shop. If the owner asks you to leave and you refuse, you’re trespassing. The same is true of a firearm. If you walk into a bar that has a sign that says “no firearms” with a gun and the owner decides to let you stay, you have not committed a crime. If he asks you to leave, you have to go.

    Prior to the passage of the law, if you walked into a bar that did not explicitly allow the carry of firearms, you were automatically guilty of a gun crime (not trespassing – a gun crime). If a cop saw you in the bar, you could be arrested, even if the owner decided not to ask you to leave.

    1. “if you walked into a bar”

      What if it’s a priest, a minister, and a rabbi, and they’re all armed?

      1. Well, as long as there’s no mullah or ayatollah, it should turn out fine.

    2. IIRC, it was previously illegal to carry in a location that sold alcohol.

      1. No, it was already legal to carry in supermarkets, liquor stores, convenience stores, etc. It was also legal to carry in bars that expressly permitted it.

  18. How can this be spun as a bad thing?

    Yeah, this. It almost seems like a Liberty-Zen thing, where it’s understood (supposedly) that it’s bad in that it ever needed to get to the point of having this law.

    1. I think it’s more in the nature of moral equivalence.

      The progs do something oppressive, the Reason staffers rightly denounce it, but for the sake of fairness, they have to find a similar outrage by the conservatives, to sort of balance things out. They’re so eager to find counterbalancing atrocities by conservatives that they are a bit credulous, and in this case accept misinterpretation of a “conservative” law.

      It may have something to do with cocktail parties.

      1. Well, I didn’t want to lay that particular rap on the fine staffers of Reason, but I suspect you’re correct.

      2. CATO tends to do the same thing. In addition to fairness, it is probably also connected to their desire to be seen as a an alternative to the two main views.

        1. Needs more COCKTAILZ PARTIES! fellows

          1. “And in Georgia, you have to let people come onto your property with guns!”

            “So much for them believing in freedom!”

            “Say, where *is* Georgia on a map, anyway?”

            “I don’t know, probably next to Utah.”

            http://ilustradoradeprincesas……-party.jpg

        2. They could reserve their ammo for those conservatives who support, say, the drug war or the welfare state.* The only problem is that this wouldn’t distinguish them very much from the progressives, except insofar as the progs are even crazier (welfare not only for the hungry, but for those who want sex changes!).

          *Of course, some conservatives oppose both.

          1. “wouldn’t distinguish them” = wouldn’t distinguish statist conservatives.

  19. *UPDATE: The law allows private property owners to “exclude or eject” people carrying firearms, Private property owners shouldn’t need a law to let them exclude who they want, nor one to require specific kinds of compensation.

    This note seems pretty incongruous with the title. The law pretty specifically does not “Force Employers to … Permit Guns on Premises”.

    In my reading it explicitly says that the rights of private property owners trump the rights of individuals to carry without the property owner’s permission. That’s the way it worked before this law passed they just removed and ambiguity about the precedence.

    Characterizing it as “need a law to let them exclude who they want” seems disingenuous to me.

    1. Same here.

      Still floundering to recover from a piece-of-crap Cathy Young-style equivocation.

      Give it up. You blew it on this one, Ed. Let it be a lesson to you: never write an article about a bill WITHOUT READING THE BILL.

      1. They could have just cited Kentucky law KRS 237.110.

        1. What about Kentucky law KRS 1?

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VRZq3J0uz4

        2. ???

          I didnt read thru it again, but did when I got my CCDW. KY law is like the GA one, anyone can be asked to leave the premises.

  20. Several articles on this Hobby Lobby thing, on a libertarian site, and I haven’t seen (haven’t gone through all with a fine tooth comb) much about maybe it’s time to shift health insurance off the responsibility list of employers onto employees. End the tax benefit for employer paid health and make it a 100% cost to the employee who buys from a free market. Then they can get paid what they’re worth without gyrations over benefits and they can get whatever coverage they want, if any at all. Then they transplant their nipples to their ass, if they get a policy which covers it. The whole problem is the corpora-fascistic structure we have right now. We are moving toward single-pay universal care if we don’t move in the other direction. The long and the short of it, when someone else pays (a corporation or a government) they call the shots.

    1. Government will never go for moving the responsibility to the individual. The reaction would be the same as getting rid of withholding. Government needs the parasitic relationship with business in order to line its pockets without upsetting the populace. The same goes for using businesses to control the populace’s behavior and choices.

      1. A friend told me his theory – the government wants a middleman to blame – employers, insurance companies – so it can call on these middlemen to implement federal policy while taking the blame for any defects in the policy. So they put health insurance in the hands of employers, and reserve the right to be selectively outraged at “OMG, help me, government, keep my boss out of my insurance (which the government encourages my boss to handle)!”

        1. “while taking the blame” – while the *middlemen* take the blame.

          1. “Corporate Taxes” are consumer taxes, but the state gets the companies to collect them, thereby transferring some of the accounting costs off the gov’t books.

        2. Employer provided health insurance was a response to wage controls in the 1940’s. If we could get employers out of it and make the end-user the customer instead of an input, and end the ridiculous ban on inter-state health insurance, we’d probably see good things happen.

    2. This isn’t an anarchist site you know.

      1. Even so, Reason has written about that sort of thing before. Ending the favored tax treatment of employer plans is pretty standard among libertarians.

        1. I was being tongue-in-cheek. You’re absolutely correct that is the right argument to make.

      2. A man can dream, can’t he?

    3. Get your comb out and do some searching.

  21. *UPDATE: The law allows private property owners to “exclude or eject” people carrying firearms, Private property owners shouldn’t need a law to let them exclude who they want, nor one to require specific kinds of compensation.

    You mean private business owners should be able to chose who they want to do business with?

    Why are you such a racist, Ed?

  22. These issues might be construable as comparable if liberals had to pay for my guns/ammo… but they don’t.

    If you have an issue with a law written to disambiguate potentially legally ambiguous language which was intended to restrict liberal judges and local governments, and not private property owners, then you have a personal problem.

    Parking lot bills are are written to address an intrinsic conflict. If employers are able to prohibit a gun within my car then they are also prohibiting me from having the gun on my person in lots of places that ARE NOT THEIR PROPERTY.

    1. Don’t work for or do business with them then. It’s their parking lot. That’s how liberty works.

      1. Next, of course, is your employer demanding that you don’t let them search your car at random.

        Which circles us back around to the original question: Is the car your property, or theirs? If its yours, do their property rights override yours when you are in their parking lot?

        You can get deep into the weeds of license, bailment, etc. here, in a way that will not lend itself to easy resolution.

        The statute goes to resolving that question. I don’t see the statutory answer as obviously wrong from a principled perspective, and it has a lot going for it from a practical perspective.

        1. One too many don’ts in that post.

  23. Private property owners shouldn’t need a law to let them exclude who they want

    Ask Lester Maddox (sp?) how well that works in Georgia.

  24. Its awesome.. Start working at home with Google. It’s a great work at home opportunity. Just work for few hours. I earn up to $100 a day. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out http://www.Fox81.com

  25. These medications are available OTC. All you have to d is ask the pharmacist and you can by them without a prescription.

  26. There’s nothing unique about carrying a concealed gun into a business that has a “no guns” sign, from a legal standpoint. A business owner can request that you not bring anything into their store — open beverages, for instance. If you do so, you have not automatically committed a crime. If the business owner asks you to leave and you refuse, then you’re trespassing, and that obviously is a crime.

    If two people enter a Starbucks that has a “no guns or outside food allowed” and one of them is carry a concealed Glock and one is carrying a concealed donut, and the Starbucks employees do not ask them to leave, then neither has committed a crime. At this point, all they have done is ignore a sign. If the Glock-and-donut sensor goes off and they’re asked to leave, then both are legally obligated to leave. There is nothing special about the fact that one of the items is a firearm.

  27. The Libertarian Party came out with the libertarian position on Hobby Lobby.

    Libertarian Party Chair Nicholas Sarwark said, “Cutting the government requirement that birth control be purchased only with a prescription and making it over-the-counter would advance liberty by giving easier access to birth control for people who want it without putting their employer in the middle of their personal choices. Government doesn’t make men get prescriptions for condoms, there’s no reason it should make women get prescriptions for birth control pills.”

  28. They are now saying that SCOTUS is “anti-contraception”!

  29. “Don’t work for or do business with them then. It’s their parking lot. That’s how liberty works”

    This post still ignores the fact that the inside of my car is still NOT their property.

    It also continues to ignore the fact that when you have this conflict between property rights, and individual rights, that the government exists first to serve the people, not businesses.

    1. because that’s how our constitution is spelled out.
    2. a business is more capable affording other security measures than a person is.
    3. a business is more capable of affording legal representation than a person is, after something goes wrong.

    1. …”serve the people, not businesses.”…

      So businesses; they’re some alien process?

    2. This post still ignores the fact that the inside of my car is still NOT their property

      But the outside of your car is. In order to put the outside of your car inside another person’s property, you need to get their permission.

      Now that leaves one last question: can the business withhold permission to use their property (the parking lot) unless you are willing to do certain things with your property, like refraining from bringing weapons?

      If you say “No” to that last question, then you are basically saying that private property owners have NO right to set ANY conditions on the use of their property. If they can’t tell you “Leave guns behind”, then they can’t tell you “No disruptive behavior” or “No speech that we don’t like” or whatever.

      1. I mean, the idea that the inside of a car is somehow a separate dimension is a little unusual. Regardless, as the owner of the property I’d say that my rights as to its usage trump those of those using it. If I have a parking lot, and I post a notice stating that no one can park there unless I search the car first, people have every right to either allow the search or leave. They don’t have a right to sit there and tell me to pound sand.

        1. The employment context is a little different, in this way:

          The employer has a contract with his employees, mostly implied, that is revealed by how they act. If the employer has never required that employees submit their cars to a search, its fair to say that’s not part of the deal.

          Now, say the employer wants to change the deal. Can he unilaterally do so? Not clear to me that he can. What consideration does the employee get for agreeing to the amendment? In some areas, at least “you get to keep your job” isn’t consideration for an amendment to the deal.

      2. ultimately, the issue is control over spatial area, land or personal property. The idea that property rights includes this leads to nonsense. This is true in itself, and is also an outcome of the fact that the homesteading principle (and land ownership) is conceptually separate from the NAP and also nonsense.

        there is no way for property rights to include control over bubbles of space but also be 100% consistent 100% of the time as libertarians try.

        It’s not a bad thing, though, since there are still conceptualizations of property and land that are way more specific on the details and do manage to be consistent

  30. “that same employer ought to have a right not to be coerced by the government to permit something on his property”

    An American citizen shouldn’t have to worry about where they can or cannot protect themselves or be burdened with looking for a new place of employment every time their employer changes their stance on a particular topic. Free markets are one thing but taking away basic human rights is another. This topic has been disjointed for far too long. Why is it perfectly ok for an employer to ban free speech or the right to keep and bear arms (constitutionally protected rights) but not ban religious views (also a constitutionally protected right). Do we really need an analog of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to protect free speech and arms rights? Why does an arbitrary Act hold more power than the US constitution?

    1. Are you being serious?

      If I own a business, and I don’t like guns for whatever reason (not true IRL, but for the sake of argument) are you saying that my forbidding you from carrying a shotgun into my, say, laundromat, is somehow an infringement on your rights in a fashion that exceeds the infringement on my own? That wouldn’t be my stomping on your right to self defense, it would be your stomping all over my right to association, and using the force of the state to do it.

      You have the right to bear arms, yes. You don’t have the right to trespass while you do it. You don’t have the right to bear arms in MY STORE. Just as my right to post political signs stops at your property line, which does not IN ANY FASHION unduly restrict my right to free speech.

      These rights don’t exist in vacuums. Where they become obstacles to the rights of others they are limited.

  31. I am not in favor of the government mandating the inclusion of birth control within life insurance. However, one thing I haven’t seen was discussion of the idea that a corporation now has religious beliefs. I find that very disturbing. I find it disturbing that a corporation with religious convictions (however that is possible) can deny certain aspects of the law while a real-life religious person will not have that same freedom.

    1. Corporations are made up of people. They can’t do anything unless people do something. Thus, to require the corporation pay for certain types of birth control is to require the owners of the company to pay for it, violating their religious beliefs. And real-life people have that same freedom.

      1. In that vein, would it make sense that I, as an employee, have the right to refuse health coverage that includes birth control? Will the SCOTUS grant me that right, thereby returning the US to a buffet style insurance program?

  32. However, one thing I haven’t seen was discussion of the idea that a corporation now has religious beliefs.

    The corporation, obviously, has no religious beliefs. Its owners/managers might, and if so, prohibiting them from acting on those beliefs through their voluntary association is . . . problematic.

    And that’s the point: corporations do not have any ability to “deny” certain aspects of the law that a real-lifer religious person would not have. The ruling merely says that people do not give up their rights to act on their religious beliefs merely because they have joined or created some organization for that purpose.

  33. Plenty of left-wing Hollywood idiots are angry about this decision. No surprise: they’re more angry over this than they are by the genocide of unborn children (including girls) or the killing of innocent civilians
    (including girls and women) overseas with drones.

    Morons. All of them.

  34. And of course, nobody has the “right” to pills which result in abortion. I applaud any corporation which refuses to furnish such instruments of murder and condemn those who support the use of such pills to destroy innocent life.

    1. Addendum: I’m not going to defend Hobby Lobby, as their 401(k) plans allow employees to invest in companies which manufacture abortive pills, something which is certainly a great wrong from both a moral and a libertarian perspective.

  35. Had a conversation with a family member who was really upset about the SCOTUS decision. After ten minutes of shouting I finally got them to admit that government should not force an employer to provide birth control, Hobby Lobby has not enslaved the women that work for them, making contraception OTC will give even greater access to women, and poor women can get free contraception. After conceding all these points my relative says, “so what it’s still bullshit!” I FEELZ therefore I’m right! This is the progressive mind in simplest terms reason and logic be damned.

  36. Ed Krayewski: ” Private property owners shouldn’t need a law to let them exclude who they want, nor one to require specific kinds of compensation.”

    This was a central idea in the debate regarding the Bill of Rights. Those opposing the Bill asserted that a free people should not need a law telling them that they were free and that enumerating certain rights would lead naturally to denigrating others not explicated.

  37. Why should the government force a private business to serve blacks? And if a business can dictate what specific types of birth control an employee can use their medical benefits for, why can they not control the employee’s use of other types of employee compensation, like salaries? what if I do not want my employees using MY MONEY to purchase books that I disapprove of, or unchaste clothing?

  38. It’s discrimination. Businesses posting no weapons allowed signs are discriminating against the concealed carry public. Being in business means dealing with the public. That means people of different ethnic backgrounds,religious beliefs and political beliefs.Do you see store signs reading no blacks allowed? Not since the 60s. Why discriminate against people who’d rather legally carry a firearm for protection rather than trusting people EVERYWHERE to behave themselves?Someone will ask,”Don’t the employers have rights?”Yes.They have a right to run a business.Not to decide who can patronize it.You’re in business to make money, not push your political agenda!
    Now for employers not offering a birth control option on workers’ insurance. If birth control is against your religion, then you are discriminating against those whose beliefs allow it by REFUSING it as an added option. If they want it on their plan, it comes out of their pay anyway.This is business, NOT CHURCH!
    Businesses engage in commerce with all types of people. The employer and employee relationship is another form of commerce. America is a melting pot of all races and religions held together by tolerance. Worship how you want, but give everyone the respect you’d expect in your business with other people different than yourself. In short, Stop discriminating against legally armed Americans and short changing employees’ insurance plans.
    Unless you’re just an ASSHOLE and to do otherwise is against your religion!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.