Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

384 notes

For those of you thinking, “Well, maybe Hobby Lobby has a point about religion ‘freedom’ and healthcare…”

First off, just stop. Your boss doesn’t get to dictate what you do with your paycheck, whether it’s buying groceries, donating it all to orphans, or splurging it on hookers and blow.

Your boss might take issue with you buying pork because he’s Jewish, donating it to orphans because she thinks they’re godless, or on the hookers and blow because that’s not very Christian of you. However, your bosses would be ridiculed for thinking they have the right to tail you to make sure you’re spending YOUR money in accordance with their faith, right? There’s not much difference here. Set aside that the insurance is not directly offered by Hobby Lobby, or that they could pay taxes/penalties instead of lawyers and legal fees by kicking everyone onto the exchange, thereby taking away their supposed moral conundrum. Spoiler alert: HEALTH BENEFITS ARE COMPENSATION FOR YOUR LABOR. Why would you think for one second that your boss gets to dictate what you do with your compensation?

Second, I want you to try a thought experiment. Let’s say the owner of a for-profit business is a devout Muslim. It is forbidden in the Muslim faith to consume pork. You’ve gone to the doctor for pneumonia, and your doc gives you antibiotics. Unfortunately, many medicines in gel capsules contain gelatin, which is usually derived from animal protein. Due to fears about mad cow, it’s more common for it to be derived from pigs. Your boss claims to have the right to bar you from taking that antibiotic because your health plan is paid for in part by the company, so therefore your boss gets to dictate the company’s (their) religious belief trumps your doc’s opinion because the for-profit company is an extension of their faith. Can you imagine the pearl-clutching if Muslim business owners told these good Christians (or anyone else, for that matter) that they could not have potentially lifesaving medicine because of the owner’s beliefs? Richard Dawkins might stroke out from rage. Fox News might never recover. Michele Bachmann would require a fainting couch for the resulting vapors.

How about if it’s medicine in a gelatin capsule for high blood pressure, depression, or even erectile dysfunction medication? How about if your devout Catholic boss would only cover erectile dysfunction for married men because premarital sex is a sin, and ONLY if said medication was used with no contraception and in pursuit of conception because sex is only for procreation and every sperm is sacred? Or dictating no treatment for HIV or AIDS because only “sinners” get it and their god says no dice?

Or what if your boss says no insulin because it was derived from animal protein long ago or no Heparin to treat a blood clot because it still contains animal tissue, and their vegatarianism is a deeply-held belief too, isn’t that kinda sorta like religion, please Justice Scalia?

I cannot wrap my head around Hobby Lobby’s view that medical treatment is their business because said treatment might maybe have something to do with their employees doing the sex on their time away from work — y’know, their private lives. Not all contraceptives and reproductive health visits are for preventing maybe babies — hormonal contraceptives have a myraid of uses beyond preventing conception. The only time the sex lives of Hobby Lobby employees is their business is if employees are boning on the clock — THEN Hobby Lobby has every right to say “No sex time ‘til break time, please.” They can’t say, “No sex time ‘til ring time, please. Because Jesus.”

Working for a for-profit employer in the U.S. does not mean you must also swallow their religious dictates hook, line, and sinker. To claim otherwise in the name of religious freedom is a complete fallacy and wholly offensive to the very idea of religious freedom itself.

Filed under hobby lobby contraception news politics religion u.s. supreme court scotus religious freedom health care aca affordable care act contraceptive mandate

  1. empiredice reblogged this from clickthefrog
  2. twoheartedginger reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  3. nogoldenapples reblogged this from sweetwinter
  4. bothnorthandsouth reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  5. dwarrowkings reblogged this from clickthefrog
  6. clickthefrog reblogged this from cognitivedissonance and added:
    I’ve read “Just find another job.” Okay, now we have to shop around and inquire into the religious beliefs of our...
  7. brokenallbroken reblogged this from sweetwinter
  8. sweetwinter reblogged this from cognitivedissonance and added:
    Remember, you guys, the next president will be able to appoint at LEAST one (and maybe three!) Supreme Court justices....
  9. deadlier-than-a-rabbit reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  10. quasigeostrophy reblogged this from datagoddess and added:
    Nice explanation. I’ve bolded the key points I think have been communicated poorly about the issue (unfortunately) up to...
  11. datagoddess reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  12. twitchyknitter reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  13. bodycancer reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  14. cathymccaughan reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  15. anatoxin-a reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  16. kaleegrrl reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  17. gerirokee reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  18. janos-quested reblogged this from halfablyevilmarco
  19. halfablyevilmarco reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  20. meowmeowjademeow reblogged this from cognitivedissonance
  21. insincereendorsement reblogged this from colorthesky-red