Osler's Razor

Philosophically and ethically, she is. Legally, not so much. A board of a corporation may adopt any policy it wishes. If the corporations were non-profits, it might be our business, but for profit corporations may take any social policy positions it wishes.
 

Legally, is there a difference between a public and privately owned corporation? I know shareholders present social policy initiatives all the time that the Board rarely endorse as they appear on my proxy statements.

From the arguments I have heard (limited) it sounds like the only object to certain methods of birth control (IUD, Day after pill...). Do they object to women taking 'the pill' (daily)?
 

Generally, she is right. But, the legal fiction of a corporation, which protects the shareholders from liability, should also protect the employees from being burdened with the religious beliefs of the shareholders.

In addition, the religious beliefs in this matter do not seem to be all that sincere. Hobby Lobby has invested employee retirement money in the very companies who manufacture the drugs and devices they claim to oppose. And the burden on the beliefs of the owners is that health insurance that includes contraception is less expensive than that which does not, because expenditures are less for women on birth control than those who are not (due to cost of pregnancy, birth, and child health care).
 

“Just as one cannot transfer legal responsibilities from the corporation to the family, one should not be able to transfer personal choices to the corporation.”

Corporations have their own life, independent of the shareholders. As such, shareholders are protected, rightly or wrongly, from the liabilities created by corporate actions. Corporations answer to the shareholders through a board of directors who have a duty and responsibility to act as responsible shepherds for corporate decisions and assets. The board may feel some sense of social responsibility, but may or may not act on it to satisfaction of the shareholders. For those board decisions that impact all employees, those that object may quit and convince another employer of their worth and value. For those board decisions that are harmful to assets, operations and profit, those board members can be personally sued by shareholders. That is the check and balance of it.

The other side of the coin regarding employee rights to any kind of insurance and any kind of coverage they want through their employer goes to the root of capitalism, and free markets. Free markets works both for companies and employees. In our system, we are free to sell the products we make at whatever the market will bear. As an employee, I am free to offer my services to anyone who will pay what I consider my value. If I don’t like what my employer does, how I am treated, how I am valued as an employee, or what kind of insurance I am offered as part of my compensation, I am free to sell my skills on the open market to anyone who will buy. If the corporation is left to its own bad practices it will fail all by itself because there will be no one willing to work for that compensation package to build its products, or the price of employees who are willing to work for it will rise to make them overlook their objections, thus raising the price of product beyond value or competing products. Or, there will be no conscientious consumers willing to buy. All of this would happen without hastening by the legal system.

Corporate employers really only have two rights as far as their employees go; that they show up on time, and, ready for work. The rest is dictated by the marketplace. The employees on the other hand can work for anyone who recognizes the worth of their contribution. They need not be loyal to one employer. There is no chain that binds them. They can work for someone who is building a business, or work to build one on their own. They can let someone else assume the risk or take it on themselves. That is what is good about America.

Capitalism assumes a mobile workforce. Socialism assumes jobs come to those who wait. Legalism assumes that all wrongs perceived, whether rightly or wrongly, can be negotiated to a level of satisfaction that almost always involves money -- under the guise of principle. It is really up to us to decide under which system we want to live.
 

But isn't Hobby Lobby a privately owned company? They have a private board and do not have "shareholders" in the traditional sense of the word.

And does the concept of corporate personhood (care of Citizens United) play into this at all. I realize that was campaign/election related law but it seems to open the door in my untrained legal mind.

ps.. not a lawyer
 

Think of it this way: Hobby Lobby has no right to tell their employees they can't use their salary to buy condoms or spermacide. If part of the compensation package HL has to offer is health insurance, and health insurance is required to cover contraceptives, then HL has no right to forbid their employees from using their compensation to cover contraceptives, whatever their religious beliefs.

Other than that, where does it end? Can an LDS employer forbid me from purchasing caffeine, alcohol, or tobacco? Can an employer who values the environment prevent me from purchasing a gas-guzzling SUV? What about if the insurance plan my employer offers covers elective surgery that the employer objects to on religious or moral grounds?

Seems to me that if we care about the freedom of the individual in this country, we ought to leave these choices to the individual, and worry less that a company might compensate their employees in some fashion that might ultimately be used against the "corporation's" religious beliefs.
 

This is why the Citizens United ruling is so troubling.