Off the top of my head, that sounds like a reduction in benefits/compensation that disproportionately effects some employees on the basis of their religious beliefs (or lack thereof).
No, Upchurch. All employees are treated the same, none of them get the benefit. The fact that some
want the benefit and others do not doesn't make their treatment any different. And that's always going to be the case: if a company does not offer a vision plan, are people with bad eyesight having their rights trampled upon? No, they are not.
That is, those employees who need/want those medical benefits must now pay for them out of pocket, whereas those employees who, because of their faith, do not want those benefits don't. It creates a difference in employment conditions based on religion.
No, Upchurch. There are many reasons besides religion for why an employee might not want to buy insurance coverage for every form of birth control. They might be a woman past menopause, for example. Or they might be a man who's content to only use condoms for birth control, or a married couple which only wants to use the pill (coverage which Hobby Lobby is not objecting to).
But none of those, NONE of those, creates a difference in employment conditions. Everyone is treated the same. Certain employees who might want a certain benefit might not get it from the employer while other employees don't want that thing at all, but so what? That's always the case, because people want different things regardless of religion.
If someone's religious beliefs prohibited them from getting corrective lenses, it would be absurd to claim that a company which did not offer a vision plan was discriminating in his favor and against those employees who did want corrective lenses, and therefore trampling on their rights, as Magyar claimed. But that's essentially what you're arguing here.
