Separation between Church and State means that you get to hold whatever "religious" belief you want in private
Nope. It doesn't. If the state required citizens to abondon their religious beliefs in public then that would be a clear violation of the separation of church and state. Have you read the constitution? It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
you don't get to impose those religious views (or values) on others.
I agree with you. Nobody has the right to impose on the owners of Hobby Lobby their religious views.
Not even people who just happen to be in a position of financial dependence to you.
Like my kids? Yes. I have the right to raise them as I see fit.
What people call "freedom" here is the freedom to impose your arbitrary views (here "religion") onto others (employees) by cavilling over what they consider "appropriate" medical care.
What this ruling does is empower employers to meddle in what medical care their employers can spend their medical benefits, and that's wrong.
It sure doesn't. Nobody is getting fired for buying supplemental insurance, buying their own contraception, etc... Just as you wouldn't want to be forced to buy your employees Bibles, the owners of Hobby Lobby do not want to buy what they consider abortion pills. It's that simple.
The separation between church and state held the provision that e.g. employers couldn't use their power to meddle in the (privileged) docter-patient relationship, and that protection has just been lifted.
No it didn't. Nobody is meddling.
The question of whether Hobby-Lobby employees can make do in other ways is irrelevant.
Translation from Internet Atheist to English: Irrelevant - "You had a really great point and I can't argue with it."
I think they shouldn't have to have to circumnavigate this particular obstacle in the first place.
Then work somewhere else. I don't agree with everything my employer does, but I choose to work there anyway.
I get the distinct impression that people fail to see how dangerous it is to lift this protection because it's touted as "Christian". For better or worse, Hindu, Muslim, Satanist, and Scientologist "religions" just got the same rights.
Good for them. I support religious freedoms.
Your analogy about the "Hindu refusing to buy me [...]" is beside the point I think, because that's a case of an employer refusing you discretionary spending. Medical treatment is not discretionary, and although the employer ultimately foots the bill it's not something he would ordinarily have any say in (apart from this "religious" thing now). It's medical benefits, not some gift!
I don't think plan B is a medical treatment. It's elective. A baby is not a disease. I would argue that liposuction comes closer to a treatment.
What I'm calling for is a state in which nobody can construe their their religious "rights" in ways that allow them to impose their religious views on others.
Me too. Which is why I find it odd that you do want to impose your religious beliefs on business owners.
