I had responded to a question about Hobby Lobby and the issue going back and forth with the ACA. This is the text of the "Best Answer" and while I do not criticize the person who answered, I thought it merited a closer examination...
"No, definitely NOT...Hobby Lobby's owners should not be able to deny legal access to birth control to their female employees nor should these employees' own religious freedoms be denied them.
Hobby Lobby ships their goods on taxpayer-funded highways, they take money for their sales from the general public and reap profits from having done so, they rely on all Americans of all faiths or non-faith and all ethnicities, and they cannot discriminate in their hiring practices either. If the whacko bird religious-extremist owners want to live in the United States they have to abide by the laws of the land---and the Affordable Care Act has been law of the land since March 2010. If they want to claim "religion" as a reason for NOT complying with established law, then let them close the store to all but people of the very same extremist "religion as theirs and hire only the evangelical extremists that believe as they do. "
Keep in mind that Hobby Lobby is a family owned corporation who is NOT forcing their religious views on their employees, nor are they discriminating against potential employees based on religious beliefs. The responder (in my eyes) loses credibility with their use of “wacko bird religious-extremist owners”. Apparently, standing up for what is important to you gives you “wacko-bird” status these days, but only for those on the right.
That said, the responder seems to feel that the company's NOT wanting to be FORCED to provide something that violates their beliefs is a violation of the employee's rights. First, refusal of this does not prevent access to birth control, it just makes it payable by the employee--same as if there was no insurance at all. The employee's religious freedom is not impeded whatsoever, so I can't figure that part out.
Next, the responder goes on to talk about taxpayer-funded and the source of funds, etc. and that the employer has to abide by the law of the land. Unless I miss my guess, refusing to lose your own rights is how laws are formed, changed and eliminated in America. The owners are taking a stand for their own rights to live free and decide the fate of their enterprise--built by them taking all the risk. The President has provided all kinds of exemptions, but a free citizen refusing to give up their rights is a bad thing?? Also, the owners are not complying through the legal process.
I am conservative and am not a fan of many liberal ideas, but many have merit and I know many liberals who are damn good people. It is when opposing views are labeled "extremist" that things get out of hand. We decide where we wish to shop all the time. We can decide if we do not like a business for whatever reason and shop elsewhere. How is forcing one group of people to violate what is important to them for the "greater good"? What happens when a conservative is in control and tries to do the same? Will liberals go against that and not accept the responses they are giving in this very case?
Main question: In this case, what is more important: forcing a company to pay for services they disagree with or allowing Americans the freedom to dictate their own course in life? We talk about rights, but rights extend up to the point where they violate someone else's.