mostly hype against hobby lobby ruling, and the ruling wasn't wrong anyway

i don't know why it matters that ninety percent of corporations are closely held. that only means a lot of corporations should have a lot more say in what they do with their employees. we're just recognizing that it is people who are running the corporation. and those people have religious rights. it's not like these are major corporations, where the board is made up of the public whose bottomline is share holder returns... almost practically public entites. these are private businesses. people shouldn't be penalized and have to give up their basic rights, just because they want to incorporate. i don't necessarily define it to be traditional, but that is a sure fire test of what we should respect. if it's been done a long time and is well estabished, we should respect it. you could argue this opens a slippery slope, but a slippery slope is opened either way. if we allow them to ignore the religous ideas of those catholics and such, the first amendment could basiclaly become meaningless. on the other hand, does it mean we have to respect parents when they dont want to vacinate their kids o do basic medical procedures due to religious reasons? the only way to approach it, again, is to do it 'categorical exception' and this is a traditinoal approach, so it should be respected. increased pregnancies, abortions, and yes all those medical benefits of birth control, those are just a fact of life. the ruling doesn't prevent people from getting birth control and such on their own. we hsould'nt ask people to give up their basic rights just so they can get free birth control and such. we are getting into compromising rights otherwise. without compromising rights, we simply have people's rights respected and things that are a part of life. i don't know why con brings up viagra. it's not even like anyone wants to object to their use, and the government forcing them to use it. people do have legitimate concens for birth control and abortifacents. if people don't object to it, why even bring it up? "Hobby Lobby has decided for its employees that they will not have the choice to take birth control that they find objectionable. Hobby Lobby has decided for its employees and it doing so forced its morality upon them." not providing a certain birth control is not forcing one's morality one someone else. the employees are still free to do things on their own. this all goes back to the point menetioned earlier, that we shouldn't expect people to give up their most basic rights to force them to do things that dont even really be need one to begin with, and could jut as easily be the responsiblity of the employees. con is basically trying to create 'rights' where they don't exist, or at least they don't exist in any fundamental form. they are merely legislative created 'rights'. con is using the legislative 'right' to birth control, and then using this 'right' to trump an established consituional fundamental right of religion. that is simply going way too far, and asking too much. again, you haven't addressed that pointing out the china thing, is simply pointing out their hypocrisy. con hasn't shown that they shouldn't be forced to do other things that are against their beliefs, he's just shown that they are inconsistent and hypocritical. yet con as i noted above, is acting like it means the court is wrong to respect their rights, just because htey ae hypocritical? that doesn't follow. and even if we did try to base what the outcome was on their own standards, it is not unreasonable to argue that buying from china is more removed from their forced abortions, than directly forcing something that is against their beliefs. in established ethical morality, there are concepts that better explain this stuff, like remote and proximate means and ends, if you want more information on the formalities.