Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2014 3:54:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 3:27:00 PM (view original):I'm assuming there are people who work at Hobby Lobby, too. Right?
Posted by tecwrg on 7/4/2014 1:41:00 PM (view original):I'm assuming that there are people that work at insurance companies, right?
Posted by bad_luck on 7/4/2014 12:04:00 PM (view original):So now an insurance company is a person?
Posted by tecwrg on 7/3/2014 9:39:00 PM (view original):If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, that violates your rights?
Posted by bad_luck on 7/3/2014 9:30:00 PM (view original):Sure they are.
And insurance premiums aren't birth control subsidies.
If I'm paying premiums to an insurance company, and that insurance company is providing birth control to it's clients, then my premiums are subsidizing it.
Where do you think the money to pay the drug companies for the birth control is coming from?
I thought it might be an "entity specifically formed to legally separate it from shareholders".
Has something changed since last night in your definition of businesses?
And you didn't answer the question.
I didn't answer your question because it's irrelevant to the conversation at hand.
So, to summarize your position: some companies (like Hobby Lobby) aren't people, so they have no right to religious freedom. But other companies (like insurance companies) are people, so it's no different if they purchase birth control for their insured individuals with premiums paid from their business clients, than if the individuals bought it themselves with wages paid by their employers.
In other words: businesses may or may not be people, depending on how conveniently it fits your argument.
You missed the point. We are, for the sake of argument, agreeing with the Supreme Court that a corporation is a person.
With that in mind:
If you're paying money to someone, and that person uses some of that money to pay for birth control, how does that violate your rights?