I disagree with this correlation.
The two are not the same. We do not have the right to complain about how somebody spends their Social Security, welfare, WIC or Aid to Families (or whatever like that). The government pays that money to them and government has the right to dictate how they spend it. We pay taxes to the government and we have the right to complain about how it is spent.
But, the government doesn't have the right, the cojones, the money or the clout to deliver health insurance in the same way they deliver other entitlements. So, what do they do? They foist that burden to the employer -- and it's not right. It's not right to do that and then get all picky and persnickety about what it covers when you must know that this PPACA is only a band-aid. It's certainly NOT where we need to be if we choose to provide universal health care. There are still many not covered that PPACA doesn't address.
If you want to equate complaining about being forced to purchase insurance that you are morally opposed to with another situation, then let's compare it to this:
We have a responsibility to clothe our children. Let's say that the school my daughter attends decides to implement school uniforms. The government is now telling me how to spend my money on children's clothing. No big deal. No need to go high and right. What if the uniforms they decide on are morally reprehensible to me? What if it's skimpy skintight clothing from Victoria's Secret that I don't want my daughter to wear? What if for the sake of uniformity, they said all children had to wear pants and I was opposed to that? What if I'm a devout muslim and wanted my daughter's head to be covered but that wasn't determined to be OK in the name of uniformity? (After all, if we bend to this one religion, what's next Christian Scientists?!?!?! Who PRAY?!?!?!) Am I supposed to just suck it up and make my daughter wear this morally reprehensible uniform because to complain or try to make changes is like complaining about how someone spends their welfare check?
I disagree with the quoted correlation and I disagree that it's an embarrassment to Oklahoma.
What if Hobby Lobby's practices predated this new-and-only-implemented-for-a-couple-of-days law? What if Hobby Lobby disagreed with this new-and-only-implemented-for-a-couple-of-days law? I would agree with your comment if the law was already on the books when Mr. Green went into business. He would have no right to complain about something that was already on the playing field when he brought his team to play, but he has every right to pursue a legal resolution to what he sees as an immoral law.
Bookmarks