America's best read urban weekly | Learn More »
I'm afraid the “logic” of the Hobby Lobby folks eludes me. They seem to have moral objections to providing insurance for employees that includes services/procedures that they have religious objections to. Since the insurance is part of the employees compensation, why doesn't Hobby Lobby object to paying their employees at all. After all, if an employee uses their own money (received as a salary from Hobby Lobby) to pay for the service/procedure in question, doesn't that make Hobby Lobby even more directly involved in providing the service than going through a third party, ie, the insurance company. Does Hobby Lobby expect to argue that they shouldn't have to pay gasoline taxes because that tax goes to building and maintaining highways that person could actually use to travel to a clinic to have an (gasp!!) abortion?
Website powered by Foundation