Monday, June 30, 2014

Hobby Lobby Represents All That Is Wrong With the United States

I do not understand why companies keep getting the benefits of rights as if a company or corporation is the same thing as an individual person.  Companies that employ more than 50 people (which, Hobby Lobby is a chain, people!  There are 7 stores within 50 miles of where I live.) have to provide healthcare for their employees.  So why should a COMPANY, which employs at least 50 people, get to enjoy a religious freedom (such as not providing birth control as part of their healthcare plan), which in turns impedes on the religious freedom of at least 50 people???  How is it that the company's religious freedom is worth more than one person's religious freedom?

And what about everyone's basic human rights?  Now if you are gainfully employed by one of these "close-held" companies, who are required to provide you health insurance because they are a large enough company to do so (again, Hobby Lobby is has many storefronts...one might even call them a CHAIN, you are not provided with all of the basic health insurance amenities required by federal law.  So, this COMPANY'S "basic human rights" now also supercedes the 50+ employees's basic human rights.

I think it all comes down to the fact that men are making these laws and decisions.  In the U.S., 49% of all pregnancies are unplanned or "unintended."  There have been studies that have found that the percentage of abortions in countries that allow legal abortions and make abortions illegal are the same--it's just the illegal abortions have more repercussions of death and injury to the women.  If men were the ones getting pregnant (especially unintended pregnancies), there'd be no question about the legality of birth control, or an ethical debate about a COMPANY'S religious freedom.

(By the way, to prove that my freedoms are being impeded and restricted, as I tried to post this blog post, the wireless card on my personal laptop died...As they say on FOX news, "I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but...")

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home