I find our local Hobby Lobby to be a useful store for a variety of things. I do wish that they made custom frames in-house instead of having them built in Oklahoma, requiring an extra 10 days to 2 weeks from the time I place an order till they make it back to the retail location. But that’s a small and very specific quibble.
And, as a matter of fact, so is Hobby Lobby’s decision to not not provide (read: subsidize) insurance premiums for policies which would cover (read: pay for) certain medicines or medical devices which Hobby Lobby believes to be morally wrong. Hobby Lobby is not refusing to provide health insurance to its employees (which would be counterproductive to hiring). Nor is the store requiring that its employees refuse to procure these things via some other means, or punish them somehow if they do. So why all the hullabaloo?
Matt Walsh cuts to the heart of the matter:
But no employer is trying to stop its employees from using birth control. The issue is about employers not wanting you to get birth control THROUGH THEM. Uninvolved in your sex life? Yes, that’s precisely what they would be. They aren’t interfering with your reproductive choices. You are free to do whatever you want to do. You just aren’t free to force others to subsidize it.
Hobby Lobby isn’t forcing its workers to abstain from MAPs and IUDs. They are merely declining to cover it. That’s all. Someone declining to give you something is NOT the same thing as them removing your right to obtain it. If I refuse to buy you lunch, am I taking away your ability to eat?
By this logic, I guess I am.
This is an extension of the freeloader’s dictum : “If I desire something, then somebody owes it to me.” In its simpler form, this is often seen as “________ is a human right,” where the blank can be filled in with anything one wishes.
The problem is that now that our federal government has decided we can be forced to purchase something we do not want (in complete contravention to good sense and that troublesome 200-year-old document), no particular legal basis is needed to force Hobby Lobby to offer something for purchase (since employees “buy” the insurance through their employment) which it finds immoral.
I hope it is not too late for several of the (supposedly) smartest people in black robes on the planet to understand that a government which can do either of the above is no longer answerable to the people who constituted it.
Jay Sekulow nails it:
If government can regulate when it pleases, however it pleases, regardless of the strength of the owner’s convictions or the weakness of the government’s interests, then does anyone truly own a business any longer?