I can't prove it, but I'm pretty sure they are. Those folks are Mennonites.

Yes, would matter to me. And, yes, they are the Conestoga Wood Specialties in East Earl, PA.

From the Conestoga site:
"Conestoga Wood Specialties is an Equal Oportunity Employer and does not discriminate based on race, color, relgion, age, marital status, national origin, disability, veteran's status, sex or membership in any group protected by law.

Conestoga operates facilities in Beavertown, PA, Beaver Springs, PA, East Earl, PA, Kenly NC and Kent, WA. For more information on job opportunities at any of these locations, please contact the local human resource department."

Here is a link that might be useful: Cabinet Authority/Conestoga

Interesting. I'd fight tooth and nail if this were a government or hospital. Private business - I support their ability to make a stand.

Thank you for posting. I will continue to buy from this company due to the great quality of their product.

(Edited to say that I have only quickly browsed the specifics of the case).

This post was edited by oldbat2be on Sat, Mar 29, 14 at 18:37

You do realize of course that if the SCOTUS allows Hobby Lobby/Conestoga to eliminate certain legal birth control from its health care policies that this would allow a Jehovah Witness employer to prohibit its insurance from paying for emergency blood transfusions?

All the more reason to transition away from expecting or demanding that our employers, or any other private entity, provide insurance for us (insurance, not health care -- we still obtain that for ourselves, or not) to a single payer system. Even though I would regret the huge loss of jobs in the private sector from doing so.

raee:

A system as you describe would make the court case moot, which makes it a good idea.

But we do not have such a system and are stuck , as Nancy suggested, trying to sort out what is in the ACA and modify it via legal challenges. IN the case of Conestoga, which I live very near, many of their workers are not Mennonite, and do not share their values. I cannot see a way out of this that does not cause a lot of confusion and set very dangerous precedents. The legal team for the Hahn family stated that each fufure challenge should be handled on its own merits, such as refusing to pay for blood transfusions. Seems the supreme court will be much busier in the future than they have been for hundreds of years, if the Hahns win.

Thank you for posting this! I had no idea. They just lost my business. The whole concept of a corporation having a religion is just absurd to me, so the idea that the corporation's religion trumps its employees' religions (or lack thereof) is just outrageous. And of course, the concept of my boss nitpicking my insurance to remove coverage for things he doesn't approve of makes my blood boil.

ideagirl2:

And that's the beauty of capitalism. Corporations have to weigh the public relations costs of their moral stands. They've made their choice and you've made yours. The system is working perfectly.

The press has focused on the practical effect of the case - no coverage for certain forms of birth control - but rarely explains that the case is about a conflict between the ACA and RFRA (the First Amendment argument is tougher to call).

Scotusblog has an explanation for non-lawyers here:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/03/birth-control-business-and-religious-beliefs-in-plain-english/

I think it's only fair to understand the legal case before using it to decide whether or not to buy from them.

Rather than single payer (which has its own issues, not to mention that large government entities never deliver their intended 'product' well or efficiently), I would love to see insurance removed from the employer and offered strictly on the free market.

The issue at hand with these employers is they do not want to pay for certain forms of birth control - they aren't penalizing their employees for using it.

Now it's time to get back in my kitchen and get some work done .... Happy Friday all!

"The issue at hand with these employers is they do not want to pay for certain forms of birth control - they aren't penalizing their employees for using it."

psbjmb:

In order for an employer to not penalize an employee, the employer would have to know which forms of birth control an employee was using.

I am at a loss to think of something that is less of an employer's business.

How exactly would an employer know one way or the other? Some employers won't cover (make "free") birth control, depending on how the Court slices and dices. The employees can still purchase birth control without employers looking over their shoulders.

To return to barlowmon's point: the problem is squaring the ACA (specifically the rule covering birth control, since the legislation was silent on this point) with RFRA, which Congress (ahem) can change at any time.

chesters_house:

Just for fun, let's take your previous first paragraph and substitute "blood transfusions" for "birth control" since, if Conestoga and HL are successful, both will be equally optional:

"How exactly would an employer know one way or the other? Some employers won't cover (make "free") blood transfusions, depending on how the Court slices and dices. The employees can still purchase blood transfusions without employers looking over their shoulders."

Think of the possibilities. Snake-handling employers could ban the practice of administering anti-venom to employees, believing that if you are to be saved, God will do the job.

Prior to the (misnamed) ACA, insurance companies and employers were not compelled to provide these coverages, and there was no outcry that all of this had to be free.

Yes there was the outcry about all the uninsured who were one step on a rusty nail from personal and financial ruin. But that hasn't changed even with this law. In fact, of all of my hundreds of acquaintances, only one has said that their premiums went down. She was very happy about that until she needed a doctor's appointment and could not find a doctor to accept her plan.

Trebruchet,

Kagan ran through that point. The answer would be that the RFRA wouldn't permit that hypothetical. Also, blood transfusions likely fall under the ACA itself, rather than under the rulemaking that followed.
Which is to say that including birth control in the ACA legislation might have made the whole thing clearer. And Congress can change RFRA if it chooses.

chesters_house:

How could the RFRA allow one and not the other? Does it have a specific list of procedures/drugs that are permitted and aren't?

No, but it says that the government can't place a "substantial burden" on the free exercise of religion unless that burden is narrowly drawn and serves an important state interest.

So here, the problem is 1) the government already handed out exceptions in the case of birth control, making it seem perhaps not all that important and 2) the exceptions were to the rules, not to the legislation itself, which never mentioned birth control. So there's no legislative history that might have reconciled competing laws, which would have left, maybe, a much harder (for Hobby Lobby) First Amendment case, instead of one that deals with statutory interpretation.