Steve Benson by Steve Benson

Steve Benson

Comments (18) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 2 years ago

    The point of being a corporation is to deliberately and legally separate the people who run it from the institution itself. Hobby Lobby wants to violate that “veil” one way: because the owners feel something, they want to impose that on employees, without the reverse being true that they can be held accountable for corporate malfeasance. If they get their way, corporations will be able to do whatever they want for “religious” reasons with no recourse for actual employees. But in fact if they break down this long-held precedent, it is EXTREMELY unlikely it will break down only one way. That means any time a corporation does something illegal, its owners and managers will be responsible.
    You will note a profound silence from the business community — because most people there realize what a stupid idea this is. Evidently Hobby Lobby does not.

  2. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 2 years ago

    Many corporations already do do things for religious reasons. I suppose if Hobby Lobby is ruled against it dooms Kosher and Halal too. After all, if government can demand a business supply contraceptives to employees against owner’s religious positions they can demand that employees have the “right” to free ham too.

  3. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 2 years ago

    The “exempt” allowances in the PPACA is incredibly messy. Even without references to laws and regulations as concerns Social Security, the tax code, HHS, Secretary of the Treasury, other paragraphs of the PPACA, etc., It is a slog to read. I wish SCOTUS and the it’s clerks the best in trying to figure out what “exempt” in this law means as applies to equality under law..

  4. lbalch798

    lbalch798 said, over 2 years ago

    “a few hundred bucks for an IUD… lets be realistic here.”
    If a ’few hundred bucks is pocket change to you, lets be realistic here," you have no dog in this fight, other then who gives a damn about the poor.

  5. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 2 years ago

    As an employer, I have absolutely no right to know what medications my employees are taking, or for what conditions. Nor should I have a right to demand what they should or should not be taking, nor to decide for which maladies those medications are acceptable or which are not.

    If I have a religious objection to tattoos, and a tattooed employee gets an infection as a result, do I have the right to ask my insurance company not to cover treatment?

    And on and on. Using religion as an excuse to enforce my desired behavior is the height of arrogance. And it is not “discrimination” or a “war on religion” for anyone to feel this way.

  6. Thriller87

    Thriller87 said, over 2 years ago

    I agree it doesn’t have to go that far back IMO. But I do agree repeal the TE status.

  7. Thriller87

    Thriller87 said, over 2 years ago

    I don’t see it as hated of religion. Look at at these Megachurches. Raking in money but not accountable for where the money goes. Joel Osteen had 600K stolen from the safe at his church recently.

  8. Hectoruno

    Hectoruno said, over 2 years ago

    One of Republican’s charges against the ACA is that they don’t want politicians making medical decisions. Why is it ok for business owners to be able to decide what medication their employees can take?
    This is a hobby store not a medical place at all.

  9. Zuhlamon

    Zuhlamon GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    hobby lobby is only against four of the types of “contraception”
    Gee, it’s “only” the rights of just a few women, so that’s ok?
    And it sets a precedent for other forms of selective compliance with this or any other law. Another for-profit corporate “person” might have a thing against medical care in general… or that women should not hold positions of authority… or that women must not have birth control at all… or that it’s ok to fire a person on “moral” grounds… slippery slope, Joad.

  10. Enoki

    Enoki said, over 2 years ago

    How is it different Nantucket? A company is forced to either provide their employees health insurance per a government designed plan or face massive fines for not doing so.
    In essence, a company cannot opt out of doing so. That a company does not agree with certain portions of the government plan, particularly a part that demonstrably should be optional (ie., birth control in this case but it could as easily be “gender reassignment” or other cosmetic surgery) why should a company not be able to opt out?
    These are not basic health issues that any employee might face.
    The same thing goes for providing other products to their employees. What if the government were to say that employers have to provide their employees transportation to work? Where does government fiat on private companies end?
    It isn’t a “war on religion” or “war on women.” It is a war on private property and enterprise.

  11. dtroutma

    dtroutma GoComics PRO Member said, over 2 years ago

    But having their taxes, and religious beliefs, supporting the bombing of pregnant women overseas, especially if they’re Muslims or not fundamentalist Christians, is okay with them.

  12. motivemagus

    motivemagus said, over 2 years ago

    Not so. Hobby Lobby provides insurance as part of their compensation, which is one way corporations recruit people. As a legal entity (a corporation), they are NOT entitled to violate federal law based on individual moral choices, e.g., deciding they don’t want to provide all that compensation (in this case, certain kinds of contraception).
    How would you like it if a company said they would pay you a salary of $50,000, but decided that since they pay a tithe to their church, they were entitled to hold back $5,000? That’s what they are asking to do here.
    In some respects the more important point is the violation of the “corporate veil,” which is extremely important to separate individual behavior from corporate responsibility (and vice versa). Hobby Lobby would mess with that, and if they do, all Hell will break loose in Corporate America. Please note: they have NO other companies filing on their behalf. There’s a reason.

  13. I Play One On TV

    I Play One On TV said, over 2 years ago

    “What religion forbids tattoos?”

    The same one that says that homosexual acts are an abomination. And that eating shellfish is an abomination. And that marking your skin is an abomination. Try Leviticus to start with.

    And even if it did not, my example would still stand. My religious beliefs forbid war; it tells me to love my neighbor and to turn the other cheek. Can I specify that I am exempt from having my taxes pay for the military-industrial complex? My religion forbids stealing; can I demand we cancel all Halliburton contracts?

    We can play this game all day.

  14. mikefive

    mikefive said, over 2 years ago

    It’s depressing to see so many comments that seem to be based on knee-jerk reaction or information from political point of view sites.

  15. emptc12

    emptc12 said, over 2 years ago

    Your comment caught my eye. Having a brother and two sisters as foster siblings through Catholic Charities, and eventually adopted, I have great respect for it and similar religious organizations. Its methods and philosophies were often very tough and old-school, but I believe most of “the sisters” had the best interests of the children in mind. Some people I know with bad experiences virulently disagree.
    The world has changed, and vocations for nuns are way down. They worked for a lot less than the lay people employed today in schools, child-care organizations and hospitals. Those institutions, in order to survive have to be tougher than ever and financially savvy. Often it might seem only the veneer of religion exists, and this is yet seen full strength in stubborn, understandable adherence to principles of dogma and traditional moral teachings. That’s my viewpoint, anyway.
    The nuns were the heroines, for sure, and in many cases still are. They have to fight for financing and one of the reasons is that the male clergy made terrible decisions in regard to child abuses cases. All the billions that (necessarily) went to victims could have been used for schools and religious institutions and other good works.
    Growing up, I saw how many priests sneered at the nuns, and look, the priests are the ones who have caused near-disaster. It’s not unprovoked hatred that has lessened funding for religious organizations, but disappointment and often disgust. The male hierarchy in religious institutions looked for Satan’s influence in everyone but themselves — the speck in their eyes while ignoring the beams in their own.
    I’m not anti-religious, and I believe this too shall pass.

  16. Load the rest of the comments (3).