Okay, as usual somebody else says things better than I do.
Here is a piece by Glenn Greenwald. He is the *fiercely* independent journalist who broke the Edward Snowden story about our government's illegal and secretive surveillance programs. He used to write for salon and is currently with the Guardian. He is also a respected and knowledgeable Constitutional scholar.
He is basically the freaking man. He wrote this piece on why he supports Citizen's United. It is basically what I am trying to say, but better, and I urge you all to read it
The problem isn't the decision as it applies to the specific issue of campaign finances or McCain/Feingold, but that it set a precedent of giving corporations the same rights heretofore only given to people. Corporations are not groups of people. They are faceless entities that employ human capital owned by incognito billionaires and multimillionaires. 100 years after all of their employees are dead and gone, the corporation remains, multinational, outside the law when suits it, under its protection otherwise, and in control of our nations policies. And heirs and heiresses will be in an even better position. No other group of people can approach the level of monetary clout that corporation owners throw at lawmakers. 90+% of this nation's wealth is controlled by 1% of its population. They are who benefit from this decision. This is but the beginning. It will only worsen from here.
They are not. They are owned by a tiny percentage of people who employ large groups of people. In and of themselves, they are not people. The people involved have rights guaranteed by the Constitution. Now, so do the businesses themselves, essentially serving as an untouchable proxy for the billionaire in charge. And c'mon, it's not like they put these corporate policies to a vote involving the employees. They are instead subjected to the political and religious views of the business owners.
Ahh yes but corporations contribute oh so much to the war chests of politicians running for office...
Anonymously, and in unlimited amounts. If a business owner tried to subject employees to policies based on his/her personal religious and/or political views, that would be in violation of their rights. But if done through a corporations, that circumvents said rights in favor of those of the corporation, not the owner him/herself.
Nobody, and I repeat, No-Bod-Dy, has ever said that they were. Not the Supreme Court. Not me. The only people who imply that are people who are upset that the decision did not go their way and try to twist the conversation into an us-vs-them situation.
And c'mon, it's not like they put these corporate policies to a vote involving the employees. They are instead subjected to the political and religious views of the business owners.
First sentence is obviously true. Second sentence is nonsense! My boss's campaign contributions have nothing to do with me. Also nobody claims that employees try to subject employers to their religious views when discussing equal opportunity hiring based on religious beliefs!
Here is the question (and please answer it this time) why does CNN or Fox or MSNBC (ALL corporations) get exempt from restrictions on free speech.
If the government shut down ABC news because they mentioned Mitt Romney's name 30 days before an election, would you really be like "Who cares? They are a not people, they don't have any rights!"
On a similar note, I wonder how many of my friends on the left would think it is okay to silence a group like GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) if they aired an advertisement about Rep. Hartzler or any other homophobic politician. Or if NARAL did one about Todd Akin's rape-pregnancy comments.
I know nobody here has whined about the supposed "personhood" of trade unions yet!
edit: Or for that matter, are the Republican and Democratic National Committees people now? Because they can air campaign videos all they want.
If a business owner tried to subject employees to policies based on his/her personal religious and/or political views, that would be in violation of their rights. But if done through a corporations, that circumvents said rights in favor of those of the corporation, not the owner him/herself.
Business owners like those of Hobby Lobby should not be able to deny their employees certain medications due to personal beliefs simply by doing so through their corporation. That would never fly if they tried to do that without a corporate proxy. Edit: It's not an issue of Left vs. Right. Nobody should be able to do this to their employees, but now they can.
Business owners like those of Hobby Lobby should not be able to deny their employees certain medications due to personal beliefs simply by doing so through their corporation.
"not pay for against your will"=deny
stop denying me my videogames that I had to pay for myself!
Personal contributions are limited. Corporate ones are not, by virtue of shell companies. A textbook example of having your cake and eating it too.
I can't explain the proxy issue any more clearly. If owners could do that to their employees without using corporate personhood as a way of circumventing employee rights and freedoms, they would. And that Supreme Court case wouldn't exist.
Video games != medication. Nobody expects an employer to cover video games.
Small business owners are not corporate entities unless they are an LLC, which are now also exempt.
Personal contributions are limited. Corporate ones are not, by virtue of shell companies. A textbook example of having your cake and eating it too.
"The law also prohibits contributions from corporations and labor unions. This prohibition applies to any incorporated organization, profit or nonprofit. For example, the owner of an incorporated "mom and pop" grocery store is not permitted to use a business account to make contributions. Instead, the owner would have to use a personal account. A corporate employee may make contributions through a nonrepayable corporate drawing account, which allows the individual to draw personal funds against salary, profits or other compensation. " source: Federal Election Comission http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
Business owners like those of Hobby Lobby should not be able to deny their employees certain medications due to personal beliefs simply by doing so through their corporation. That would never fly if they tried to do that without a corporate proxy. Edit: It's not an issue of Left vs. Right. Nobody should be able to do this to their employees, but now they can.
As much as it would be interesting to simply view the Hobby Lobby case as an even more ridiculous extension of corporate personhood (corporations now can hold sincere religious beliefs?!?) it's actually MORE about two other things: a.) a nod to the religious right, whose target has never been just abortion, but birth control as well and b.) a blatant, disgusting patriarchal view towards women's rights. Over 50% of women who take the birth control pill use it for legitimate and serious medical reasons that have nothing to do with contraception, and even if 100% did use it for contraception the ruling would be just as revolting.
Furthermore, don't kid yourself and think that any religion other than Christianity would receive this type of ruling, which is why the 5 cowards in the majority said it applied narrowly to this case, and this specific objection. It's insanity.
That's the surface issue. The precedent set by Citizens United allowed this ruling. The Hobby Lobby result is a symptom of a much larger problem, and it isn't going to stop at birth control. This is just the first in a long line of legal interpretations to come.
That's the surface issue. The precedent set by Citizens United allowed this ruling. The Hobby Lobby result is a symptom of a much larger problem, and it isn't going to stop at birth control. This is just the first in a long line of legal interpretations to come.
You're right that it's just the beginning, but what they mean when they say "narrow" is "a Christian's right to impose their morality on society on large". They went out of their way to say it wouldn't apply to someone who didn't want to pay for vaccines or blood transfusions. And based on this decision, why the hell not?? I could make up a "sincerely held religious belief" before I go to bed tonight and it wouldn't be any more or less valid than Hobby Lobby's claims that they believe these types of contraceptives cause abortions (which they don't).
Having a ton of armed civilians doesn't defend your country, it just means when someone cuts you off or sleeps with your wife you get pissy take your guns and kill each other. If you want to defend your country, join the Military. That's what it's for.
I can see where you're coming from in your arguments about the political and free speech rights of companies, @booinyoureyes. I disagree however with your implication that a company reflects the policial views of all its employees in the same way a political party or union represents the views of their members.
Companies are hierachical organisations (unless they're co-operatives) that tend to concentrate wealth and power toward the top. Employees do not usually get a say in their management structures or the appointment of CEOs, the board of directors and so on. It is possible for the controlling elements to be out of touch with (or even opposed to) the majority of staff. The CEO, owner and board of directors already have both free speech and rights to an equal level to everyone else - they can vote, assemble and publish.
Allowing the company "as a whole" a say actually means that those in charge speak and employees are silent, in effect creating a class of super-voters who are worth more politically. "One man, one vote" used to mean fighting to get equal representation. Now it applies to those without a wealth or power multiplier like a corporation, whose political and economic leverage applies regardless of ballot outcome. In my opinion this is unjust and undermines the fundamental strengths of democracy.
Unions and Political Parties are usually elected bodies, where leaders are more likely to represent the views of the mass of members. Not always true, granted. They're also obligate political bodies with a duty to represent the interests of their members. Historically in both the US and UK unions have been far more politically powerful, and have had major curbs put on them. Corporations now occupy a similar place - powerful enough to influence policy by coercion and threat - but there no political will to limit them effectively.
@Corvino is totally right. For this to work you'd have find a job, with a boss who shares your political and social views. It's hard enough to find a job at all without worrying about what they are going to use your statistic, for lack of a better word, (You know, we have 400 employees, your one of those 400) to get what they want politically...
I think we're moving down a very dangerous slope... one we may not be able to reverse...
The user and all related content has been deleted.
It's far worse than you think. In the past few months we have had two incidents of entrapment with the intent to commit murder and the perpetrators have used self-defense as a defense.
The first incident (in my home state of MN) was a old guy who lived alone who had been robbed a few times in the past couple years. He deliberately shut his house down to make it look like he was away for the week, took rations down to his basement and waited for someone to break in. Two teenagers did so (a boy who was on drugs and looking for money and his girlfriend). He lay in wait for the boy in the basement, shot him in the leg and then killed him after he was injured. The girlfriend came in to see what was going on, he shot her in the leg, and the summarily executed her with a shot to the face. There is audio online (because he taped it) and it is some of the most chilling stuff you will ever hear. No matter what these two kids did wrong, the punishment for breaking and entering is not instant death.
The second happened in (I believe) Montana. A man deliberately left his garage door open with a purse sitting out in wide view. A Turkish exchange student came by. On the surface it may seem like he was going to swipe the purse (not that it matters) but I have heard that in Turkish culture the polite thing to do would be to go in and let this family know they left the purse outside. We'll never know because the man who set the trap was waiting and unloaded on him with a shotgun without saying a word or asking a question.
Having a ton of armed civilians doesn't defend your country, it just means when someone cuts you off or sleeps with your wife you get pissy take your guns and kill each other. If you want to defend your country, join the Military. That's what it's for.
Really? Nice of you to decide what I do with my guns. I guess I missed the memo to "get pissy" and "take my guns" to go kill someone who got on my nerves.
Having a ton of armed civilians DOES defend your country, it makes the government a whole lot less likely to screw with peoples' freedom. Without it, they can essentially do whatever they please.
I'm also gonna make the point that if you don't live in the USA, then your opinion regarding how the USA should run is worth a lot less. This sounds rude, but honestly, this applies to every country. I shouldn't claim I know the best way for, say, Sweden to run things, because I don't live in Sweden. If you aren't experiencing our culture (or lack thereof, LOL), then you can't really know how things go down over here. All you can get is bits and pieces from the news, and we all know the news is quite biased.
I can see where you're coming from in your arguments about the political and free speech rights of companies, @booinyoureyes. I disagree however with your implication that a company reflects the policial views of all its employees in the same way a political party or union represents the views of their members.
I never said that it did, though often (obviously not always) what benefits the corporation benefits the employees.
What I said was that the owners and managers are people in and of themselves, and they have the same rights as any other person. The employees are not really a factor in my position.
Also, the same way that Unions and Political Parties are "elected" so are most heads of corporations. The board chooses the CEO and other management positions, and they represent the interests of the board.
Its an awkward position for me to defend people who I often disagree with, and could obviously sway policy in certain directions, but the way I see it if I cannot defend the rights of another person to disagree with me and act freely, then I have no right to demand such protections for myself.
We might not like the leaders of certain corporations, but I do not see the justification in banning a movie they funded or burning a book they published. Other people doing things you don't like is the price of liberty.
Corporations now occupy a similar place - powerful enough to influence policy by coercion and threat - but there no political will to limit them effectively.
I disagree with the idea that corporations "influencing policy by coercion and threat" is what is being discussed. We were talking about the Citizen's United ruling, which simply gives corporations (meaning, again, their owners the same way that referring to a union is really referring to its membership) the right to make movies, commercials, etc during an election cycle.
I also think that business owners DO have a right to live by their own creed, religious or otherwise, even if I find it to be absurd. The same way that people should not have the product of their labor taken against their will to subsidize religious organizations (ie schools, churches, equipment/installations) that are contrary to their personal philosophy, so should business owners have the right to be free from, as you say, "coercion and threat", that pushes them to violate their own beliefs.
We have to understand that a mandate such as the one in question is quite literally coercive. It is based on the threat of fines and jail time if one does not comply. That is not the method I would choose to propel social change and progress.
@Corvino Also something that should be noted about American trade unions is that in the majority of the States, union membership is compelled. That is, even if you do not want to join a union, if you work in a field you are required to pay union dues and accept their representation.
That is a power that not even corporation are given. I don't know how it is in the UK, or if the knowledge on how the American system works is common there, but that is how it is in the States (just an fyi)
Furthermore, don't kid yourself and think that any religion other than Christianity would receive this type of ruling, which is why the 5 cowards in the majority said it applied narrowly to this case, and this specific objection. It's insanity.
Quite frankly this point you make about other religions is quite frankly, at best entirely irrelevant and at worst just another way to distract or drive a wedge between people and paint everything as an "us vs them" conflict.
EVERYBODY should have the same rights and protections. Nobody here as far as I can tell has ever said otherwise, or claimed that one group should receive what is in their opinion special treatment over others.
It is a great pet peeve of mine when people argue against the invisible man in a normal, friendly debate. Its like when I criticize one parties foreign policy and people say "oh yeah??? well the other party when they were in power did the same thing!"... as if I supported it then!
With the "influencing policy by coercion and threat" comment I was trying to open the discussion up into the toxic role that some businesses are having in eroding the democratic process and shirking their duties both to employees and the taxman.
A number of multinationals in the UK including Google, Amazon and Starbucks have used loopholes, holding companies and high-interest loans between branches of the same company to pay little or no Corporation Tax in the UK for years. Google's UK sales in 2012: £2.6 billion, tax paid £6 million. Starbucks claims to make a loss in the UK despite £3 billion in sales. Primarily due to funnelling profits overseas to tax havens. And the threat always exists that if they were made to face up to their tax responsibilities that they could simply pull out of UK operations, causing mass unemployment. Because of this these companies pay a 0-5% rate of tax instead of 20%. No real political will exists to challenge it either.
My view on the United Citizens thing comes down to this: at present, it doesn't seem companies have a duty of care to their employees. If a doctor doesn't feel able to prescribe contraceptives then there is an obligation, a duty of care, to refer the patient to someone who will. Companies have no equivalent obligation. Given that employers provide a huge proportion of the health insurance in the US, and many people could not afford health insurance otherwise, it is pitting an employee's choice between their health and their job. I don't know if all contraception was not funded - if so it's a huge blow. Hormonal contraceptives are used to treat dozens of conditions including Endometriosis, Menorrhagia, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome and Acne.
If the context were changed slightly and a CEO who was a Jehova's Witness refused to fund blood transfusions it would be laughable but otherwise identical. Or if a company headed by Scientologists refused to pay for maternity care unless "silent birth" was used. These are silly examples. But they are logically extending on the precedent set by United Citizens.
(In the UK there is no obligation to join a Union that I am aware of. And contraception and nearly all other healthcare is state funded. The country's still a mess, but these things are okay.)
If the context were changed slightly and a CEO who was a Jehova's Witness refused to fund blood transfusions it would be laughable but otherwise identical. Or if a company headed by Scientologists refused to pay for maternity care unless "silent birth" was used. These are silly examples. But they are logically extending on the precedent set by United Citizens.
I fail to see how those examples are laughable. You're quite right, the examples you just gave are logical enough. Am I missing something here?
Furthermore, the Hobby Lobby decision -- even before the Affordable Care Act came swooping in, the Hobby Lobby covered 16 different types of birth control, including, yes, hormonal contraceptives. They are refusing to supply abortifacients.
One of the safest and most effective regular-use contraceptives I can think of is Levonorgestrel, it's one of five progestogen-only pills licenced in the UK. It's also the primary ingredient in Plan B, the over-the-counter "morning after pill".
Comments
Here is a piece by Glenn Greenwald. He is the *fiercely* independent journalist who broke the Edward Snowden story about our government's illegal and secretive surveillance programs. He used to write for salon and is currently with the Guardian. He is also a respected and knowledgeable Constitutional scholar.
He is basically the freaking man. He wrote this piece on why he supports Citizen's United. It is basically what I am trying to say, but better, and I urge you all to read it
http://www.salon.com/2010/01/22/citizens_united/
Corporations are not groups of people. They are faceless entities that employ human capital owned by incognito billionaires and multimillionaires. 100 years after all of their employees are dead and gone, the corporation remains, multinational, outside the law when suits it, under its protection otherwise, and in control of our nations policies. And heirs and heiresses will be in an even better position. No other group of people can approach the level of monetary clout that corporation owners throw at lawmakers. 90+% of this nation's wealth is controlled by 1% of its population. They are who benefit from this decision.
This is but the beginning. It will only worsen from here.
you say that but... who are people who are also people who are also people wait... so are they or are they not groups of people? those are also people
Is freedom of speech for all people or just people that we like/trust?
And c'mon, it's not like they put these corporate policies to a vote involving the employees. They are instead subjected to the political and religious views of the business owners.
If a business owner tried to subject employees to policies based on his/her personal religious and/or political views, that would be in violation of their rights. But if done through a corporations, that circumvents said rights in favor of those of the corporation, not the owner him/herself.
Here is the question (and please answer it this time) why does CNN or Fox or MSNBC (ALL corporations) get exempt from restrictions on free speech.
If the government shut down ABC news because they mentioned Mitt Romney's name 30 days before an election, would you really be like "Who cares? They are a not people, they don't have any rights!"
On a similar note, I wonder how many of my friends on the left would think it is okay to silence a group like GLAAD (Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation) if they aired an advertisement about Rep. Hartzler or any other homophobic politician. Or if NARAL did one about Todd Akin's rape-pregnancy comments.
I know nobody here has whined about the supposed "personhood" of trade unions yet!
edit: Or for that matter, are the Republican and Democratic National Committees people now? Because they can air campaign videos all they want.
And they spend billions more than any other group
Edit: sourcing http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
But "speaking fees" seem to have no roof. uh...what?
Edit: It's not an issue of Left vs. Right. Nobody should be able to do this to their employees, but now they can.
stop denying me my videogames that I had to pay for myself!
False. Small business owners are exempt from that mandate.
In fact the only reason Hobby Lobby had that mandate in the first place was because they were a corporate entity.
I can't explain the proxy issue any more clearly. If owners could do that to their employees without using corporate personhood as a way of circumventing employee rights and freedoms, they would. And that Supreme Court case wouldn't exist.
Video games != medication. Nobody expects an employer to cover video games.
Small business owners are not corporate entities unless they are an LLC, which are now also exempt.
source: Federal Election Comission
http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/citizens.shtml
"Having freed wealthy donors to give to as many political candidates and committees as they wish, the Supreme Court refused Monday to lift a ban on corporate contributions."
source: USA Today newspaper
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/04/07/supreme-court-political-donation-corporations/7417035/
As much as it would be interesting to simply view the Hobby Lobby case as an even more ridiculous extension of corporate personhood (corporations now can hold sincere religious beliefs?!?) it's actually MORE about two other things: a.) a nod to the religious right, whose target has never been just abortion, but birth control as well and b.) a blatant, disgusting patriarchal view towards women's rights. Over 50% of women who take the birth control pill use it for legitimate and serious medical reasons that have nothing to do with contraception, and even if 100% did use it for contraception the ruling would be just as revolting.
Furthermore, don't kid yourself and think that any religion other than Christianity would receive this type of ruling, which is why the 5 cowards in the majority said it applied narrowly to this case, and this specific objection. It's insanity.
Companies are hierachical organisations (unless they're co-operatives) that tend to concentrate wealth and power toward the top. Employees do not usually get a say in their management structures or the appointment of CEOs, the board of directors and so on. It is possible for the controlling elements to be out of touch with (or even opposed to) the majority of staff. The CEO, owner and board of directors already have both free speech and rights to an equal level to everyone else - they can vote, assemble and publish.
Allowing the company "as a whole" a say actually means that those in charge speak and employees are silent, in effect creating a class of super-voters who are worth more politically. "One man, one vote" used to mean fighting to get equal representation. Now it applies to those without a wealth or power multiplier like a corporation, whose political and economic leverage applies regardless of ballot outcome. In my opinion this is unjust and undermines the fundamental strengths of democracy.
Unions and Political Parties are usually elected bodies, where leaders are more likely to represent the views of the mass of members. Not always true, granted. They're also obligate political bodies with a duty to represent the interests of their members. Historically in both the US and UK unions have been far more politically powerful, and have had major curbs put on them. Corporations now occupy a similar place - powerful enough to influence policy by coercion and threat - but there no political will to limit them effectively.
I think we're moving down a very dangerous slope... one we may not be able to reverse...
The first incident (in my home state of MN) was a old guy who lived alone who had been robbed a few times in the past couple years. He deliberately shut his house down to make it look like he was away for the week, took rations down to his basement and waited for someone to break in. Two teenagers did so (a boy who was on drugs and looking for money and his girlfriend). He lay in wait for the boy in the basement, shot him in the leg and then killed him after he was injured. The girlfriend came in to see what was going on, he shot her in the leg, and the summarily executed her with a shot to the face. There is audio online (because he taped it) and it is some of the most chilling stuff you will ever hear. No matter what these two kids did wrong, the punishment for breaking and entering is not instant death.
The second happened in (I believe) Montana. A man deliberately left his garage door open with a purse sitting out in wide view. A Turkish exchange student came by. On the surface it may seem like he was going to swipe the purse (not that it matters) but I have heard that in Turkish culture the polite thing to do would be to go in and let this family know they left the purse outside. We'll never know because the man who set the trap was waiting and unloaded on him with a shotgun without saying a word or asking a question.
Having a ton of armed civilians DOES defend your country, it makes the government a whole lot less likely to screw with peoples' freedom. Without it, they can essentially do whatever they please.
I'm also gonna make the point that if you don't live in the USA, then your opinion regarding how the USA should run is worth a lot less. This sounds rude, but honestly, this applies to every country. I shouldn't claim I know the best way for, say, Sweden to run things, because I don't live in Sweden. If you aren't experiencing our culture (or lack thereof, LOL), then you can't really know how things go down over here. All you can get is bits and pieces from the news, and we all know the news is quite biased.
What I said was that the owners and managers are people in and of themselves, and they have the same rights as any other person. The employees are not really a factor in my position.
Also, the same way that Unions and Political Parties are "elected" so are most heads of corporations. The board chooses the CEO and other management positions, and they represent the interests of the board.
Its an awkward position for me to defend people who I often disagree with, and could obviously sway policy in certain directions, but the way I see it if I cannot defend the rights of another person to disagree with me and act freely, then I have no right to demand such protections for myself.
We might not like the leaders of certain corporations, but I do not see the justification in banning a movie they funded or burning a book they published. Other people doing things you don't like is the price of liberty. I disagree with the idea that corporations "influencing policy by coercion and threat" is what is being discussed. We were talking about the Citizen's United ruling, which simply gives corporations (meaning, again, their owners the same way that referring to a union is really referring to its membership) the right to make movies, commercials, etc during an election cycle.
I also think that business owners DO have a right to live by their own creed, religious or otherwise, even if I find it to be absurd. The same way that people should not have the product of their labor taken against their will to subsidize religious organizations (ie schools, churches, equipment/installations) that are contrary to their personal philosophy, so should business owners have the right to be free from, as you say, "coercion and threat", that pushes them to violate their own beliefs.
We have to understand that a mandate such as the one in question is quite literally coercive. It is based on the threat of fines and jail time if one does not comply. That is not the method I would choose to propel social change and progress.
Also something that should be noted about American trade unions is that in the majority of the States, union membership is compelled. That is, even if you do not want to join a union, if you work in a field you are required to pay union dues and accept their representation.
That is a power that not even corporation are given. I don't know how it is in the UK, or if the knowledge on how the American system works is common there, but that is how it is in the States (just an fyi)
Quite frankly this point you make about other religions is quite frankly, at best entirely irrelevant and at worst just another way to distract or drive a wedge between people and paint everything as an "us vs them" conflict.
EVERYBODY should have the same rights and protections. Nobody here as far as I can tell has ever said otherwise, or claimed that one group should receive what is in their opinion special treatment over others.
It is a great pet peeve of mine when people argue against the invisible man in a normal, friendly debate. Its like when I criticize one parties foreign policy and people say "oh yeah??? well the other party when they were in power did the same thing!"... as if I supported it then!
A number of multinationals in the UK including Google, Amazon and Starbucks have used loopholes, holding companies and high-interest loans between branches of the same company to pay little or no Corporation Tax in the UK for years. Google's UK sales in 2012: £2.6 billion, tax paid £6 million. Starbucks claims to make a loss in the UK despite £3 billion in sales. Primarily due to funnelling profits overseas to tax havens. And the threat always exists that if they were made to face up to their tax responsibilities that they could simply pull out of UK operations, causing mass unemployment. Because of this these companies pay a 0-5% rate of tax instead of 20%. No real political will exists to challenge it either.
My view on the United Citizens thing comes down to this: at present, it doesn't seem companies have a duty of care to their employees. If a doctor doesn't feel able to prescribe contraceptives then there is an obligation, a duty of care, to refer the patient to someone who will. Companies have no equivalent obligation. Given that employers provide a huge proportion of the health insurance in the US, and many people could not afford health insurance otherwise, it is pitting an employee's choice between their health and their job. I don't know if all contraception was not funded - if so it's a huge blow. Hormonal contraceptives are used to treat dozens of conditions including Endometriosis, Menorrhagia, Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome and Acne.
If the context were changed slightly and a CEO who was a Jehova's Witness refused to fund blood transfusions it would be laughable but otherwise identical. Or if a company headed by Scientologists refused to pay for maternity care unless "silent birth" was used. These are silly examples. But they are logically extending on the precedent set by United Citizens.
(In the UK there is no obligation to join a Union that I am aware of. And contraception and nearly all other healthcare is state funded. The country's still a mess, but these things are okay.)
Furthermore, the Hobby Lobby decision -- even before the Affordable Care Act came swooping in, the Hobby Lobby covered 16 different types of birth control, including, yes, hormonal contraceptives. They are refusing to supply abortifacients.