The legal staff at American Atheists is doing a live ask questions thing about the Hobby Lobby ruling in 50 minutes from now, 7 pm Eastern time, 4 my time, midnight UK time.
Update: here is the video link.
I know what I want to ask. On p 3 of the Hobby Lobby ruling we are told that the purpose of granting rights to corporations is to protect the rights of people associated with the corporation, including shareholders, officers and employees. What’s to prevent a group of shareholders and/or employees from counter-suing to seek protection for *their* rights?
Why do the putative rights of the owners of Hobby Lobby get to trump the rights of all those other people? There’s bound to be a cacophony of religious beliefs in play, including zero religious beliefs; what can be the rationale for protecting some at the expense of all the others?
Isn’t birth control typically included with the other medications that the insurance carrier covers? If so, how is Hobby Lobby able to exclude that handful of meds, esp. when many women take BC pills for a variety of health issues and not even as contraception? And what’s to stop a company from saying they won’t cover any other medication? They could decide it’s “God’s will” that you have heart disease, COPD, etc., and that you are prolonging your earthly existence.
These are indeed some of the issues.
I would ask them how Hobby Lobby can refuse to fund contraception coverage for its female employees when Hobby Lobby invests in companies that produce contraceptives. Wouldn’t the contraception coverage for its female employees be good for business all around in this case?
Well ask them. You can comment on the YouTube vid if you don’t do Twitter.
It says Amanda Knief, but the image shows Dave Muscato.
Dave “Maybe wearing the wrong clothes causes rape” Muscato.
Dave “Maybe there are bad reasons to get abortions” Muscato.
They really need to either educate everyone on staff about women’s rights or reign in their members.