Let me preface this with a question:
If a woman’s birth control of choice is to keep her clothes on, should the government be able to force her employer to buy her wardrobe?
You see, there’s a logical inconsistency with the left’s arguments over the Hobby Lobby case. [1]Now, granted, there usually *IS* logical problems with the left, so no great shakes, with this, but the disconnect is even more striking than usual, here.
Namely, (and leaving aside the freedom of religion aspect for the moment) ….if government can’t force an employer to pay for a woman’s clothing, why can the employer be forced to pay for her Birth control?
I suppose that the government might be able to force an employer to buy an employees clothing in specialised conditions. Say, safety equipment for a particular task. But, that doesn’t, on the surface present a constitutional conflict.
But Hobby Lobby genuinely does, in terms of our first amendment freedoms regarding religion, and that, in reality is what this case is about…. Do the left and their big government desires, trump the first amendment? The answer from the court, clearly is “no”… and the whining from the left is deafening, whining as only a 6 year old, who had a toy taken away can whine.
Contrary to their whining, this case was not about birth control per se’. A fact little mentioned by the left in their temper tantrums is that Hobby Lobby offered it’s employees 14 of the 16 methods of birth control, all paid for by the company.
So, why are liberals are upset about a company that still offers birth control and pays their employees a minimum wage of $14 an hour?
Oh, yeah, I bet they didn’t mention the bit with the pay scale, either, huh?
The objections don’t seem to make much sense. Sounds like a decent enough place to work, even by the standards of the left. The answer, though to the question is, that liberals are reacting the same way they react each and every time they find that there are limits to the power of government over the individual.
Now, I hear some say that we are dealing with a corporation, not people which, of course is absurd on it’s face. We look at Dictionary.com for a bit of help on the definition of “corporation”, to demonstrate that absurdity….
1. an association of individuals, created by law or under authority of law, having a continuous existence independent of the existences of its members, and powers and liabilities distinct from those of its members.
Look particularly at the first four words… There is no case which I am aware of, where a corporation is not made up of, and run by individuals. If you know of such a case, do tell us. We’re dying to hear.
Apparently, the left would have us leave our first amendment rights, and our morality, our religious convictions, at the door… we’re not supposed to allow our personal beliefs to affect our professional lives in any way… at least insofar as it would run afoul of the liberal worldview.
I do wonder, though… if we are so busy putting up a legal wall between our business life and our religious life, is it any wonder that we find liberals forever castigating those evil corporations for acting immorally? Seems to me we’d be better off letting business owners of religious convictions ply their trade as their consciences demand, and let the market decide its validity.
Further, let’s postulate a law handed down by the FDA that mandates the use of the word “Kosher” (or, if you like, Halal) on food that doesn’t meet that standard? Clearly, there would be large numbers of food producers who would no longer be in business, since their morality wouldn’t allow them to produce such food, regardless of what the government says.
The Hobby Lobby case was not about birth control. Not about healthcare. At the end of the day, this case is about the limits of the power of government over the individual and how that individuals conscience drives all their actions, including at the place of business.
Freedom won.
Government lost.
And the left is angry about it, which alone should tell you something.