What's all the hobby lobby hoopla?

[PeacefulChaos]

Ok so I'd just like to hear about it from real people lol... I'm either hearing about it online from uber religious people or Irl from uber religious people.

So what exactly is going on with it? Birth control? Insurance?

[ChocolateReignRemix]

This sums it up very well:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/03/24/heres-what-you-need-to-know-about-the-hobby-lobby-case/

[brehon]

As I recall Hobby Lobby, along with 2 or 3 other companies, sued the government on the grounds that they should not be required to offer contraceptives (as required by the ACA) as part of the the insurance coverage they offer their employees on the grounds that doing so violates their (the owners of the companies) First Amendment rights. I believe these are all for-profit companies.

[bettyandbob]

I believe the owner of Hobby Lobby is a Christian Conservative who believes the insurance his store provides should not cover birth control on the grounds of his own religious preferences. 

[bethben]

I don't believe it's contraceptions (i.e. birth control pills).  The owners object to two forms of contraception, IUDs and morning-after pills, which they view as a form of early abortion.  Seen here.  Or from the Washington Post - "The owners of Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialties don't have a problem with offering insurance that covers most forms of birth control, but they aren't willing to cover emergency contraceptives — like Plan B or ella -- or IUDs. Hobby Lobby contends its "religious beliefs prohibit them from providing health coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices that end human life after conception." 

 

Basically, they don't want to provide the insurance Obamacare tells them they have to which includes what some people consider to be abortifactants.

 

 

Beth

[livetoread]

In a nutshell, part of the new requirements for ACA is that companies that offer health insurance (and thus get federal tax breaks) must include birth control in their coverage. Hobby Lobby owners do not want the insurance they offer employees to cover certain kinds of birth control. They want an exception based on their religious beliefs. Questions revolve around whether a company can claim religious exceptions, and if so, where that might end up.

[PeacefulChaos]

For clarification: does the employer pay for the insurance in full?
Another question: is the birth control an option on the plans or is it mandatory? Like, for people who don't need it, do they still have the insurance for it?

Just curious. :)

[mom2scouts]

Hobby Lobby has no problem providing several options for birth control.  Due to the religious beliefs of the owners, they just don't want to be required to provide certain kinds that they believe to cause abortion.

 

I believe birth control is mandated by the Affordable Care Act and their other option is to drop insurance for all employees.

[nmoira]

I believe the owner of Hobby Lobby is a Christian Conservative who believes the insurance his store provides should not cover birth control on the grounds of his own religious preferences.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Should corporations have religious rights? Can a corporation have religious beliefs?

[PeacefulChaos]

Hobby Lobby has no problem providing several options for birth control. Due to the religious beliefs of the owners, they just don't want to be required to provide certain kinds that they believe to cause abortion.

This confuses me, though.
I guess I've always thought that the company had very little to do with the health insurance. Like the health insurance offered at DH's work is anthem - what is covered is based on the plan we choose through anthem, and the company has very little to do with any of it.
And by providing several options - the employer themselves aren't actually providing the bc, right? It's just part of the insurance plan....

Like I said, I'm confused. :p

[bettyandbob]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Hobby Lobby is a corporation. Should corporations have religious rights? Can a corporation have religious beliefs?

 

yes I know it's more complicated. I should refrain from responding when I've reached the end of my thinking for the day--which I had when I saw snow starting at 2 pm and it's still coming now. 

[Mrs Mungo]

For clarification: does the employer pay for the insurance in full?
Another question: is the birth control an option on the plans or is it mandatory? Like, for people who don't need it, do they still have the insurance for it?

Just curious. :)

No, the employees contribute.

My understanding is that the law says they have to have at least one plan that covers bc.

As an aside, Plan B works in exactly the same manner as other oral contraceptives. It is anti-science to be against one and not the other. You don't get to choose to believe something against a demonstrable fact in court.

Here is an NPR story that offers some of the facts that the OP seemed to ask for:
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/25/293956170/hobby-lobby-contraceptive-case-goes-before-supreme-court

And another that covers specific arguments being made in the court:
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/25/294385167/birth-control-mandate-goes-under-high-court-microscope

[poppy]

Hobby Lobby approves of diaphragms and condoms but not hormonal birth control, aka The Pill, or Plan B.
It does not want your insurance to cover the pill or your doctor's consultations with you on the topic.
If you worked there, you would be one of the few Americans without comprehensive health insurance. Or you could opt out and take one of the programs available to the unemployed, I guess.

[Mrs Mungo]

In federal law and medical terms, pregnancy does not begin with a fertilized egg, but with a fertilized egg that has implanted in the uterus. The contraceptives in question--Plan B, Ella, copper and hormonal IUDs--do not cause abortions as the plaintiffs maintain, because they are not being used to terminate established pregnancies.

[...]

Since the FDA approved Plan B in 1999, repeated studies have shown the drug does not inhibit implantation. After The New York Times' Pam Belluck investigated these findings in 2012, the NIH and the Mayo Clinic updated their websites to remove the implantation clause. In Europe, the label for the drug Norlevo, which is identical to Plan B, has already been changed to reflect the most recent research. And the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics and the International Consortium for Emergency Contraception have issued statements saying levonorgestrel-only emergency contraceptives do not stop implantation. [The Daily Beast, 3/22/14]

Studies have not established that emergency contraceptive pills prevent fertilized eggs from implanting in the womb, leading scientists say. Rather, the pills delay ovulation, the release of eggs from ovaries that occurs before eggs are fertilized, and some pills also thicken cervical mucus so sperm have trouble swimming.

It turns out that the politically charged debate over morning-after pills and abortion, a divisive issue in this election year, is probably rooted in outdated or incorrect scientific guesses about how the pills work. Because they block creation of fertilized eggs, they would not meet abortion opponents' definition of abortion-inducing drugs.

[...]

By 2007, scientific consensus was building that morning-after pills did not block implantation. In one study using fertilized eggs that would have been discarded from fertility clinics, Dr. Gemzell-Danielsson found that adding Plan B in a dish did not prevent them from attaching to cells that line the uterus. [The New York Times, 6/5/12]

The court deciding that these are abortifacients would directly lead to everyone under any kind of federal plan being potentially cut off from bc access since federal law forbids tax payer money to pay for abortions. It has wide reaching implications far beyond Hobby Lobby's employees.

[mom2scouts]

Hobby Lobby approves of diaphragms and condoms but not hormonal birth control, aka The Pill, or Plan B.
It does not want your insurance to cover the pill or your doctor's consultations with you on the topic.
If you worked there, you would be one of the few Americans without comprehensive health insurance. Or you could opt out and take one of the programs available to the unemployed, I guess.

 

My husband is employed and he doesn't have health insurance through his employer.  In fact, it's still quite common in my area for small business employers not to offer health insurance.  The Marketplace plans aren't just for the unemployed.

[Mrs Mungo]

This confuses me, though.
I guess I've always thought that the company had very little to do with the health insurance. Like the health insurance offered at DH's work is anthem - what is covered is based on the plan we choose through anthem, and the company has very little to do with any of it.
And by providing several options - the employer themselves aren't actually providing the bc, right? It's just part of the insurance plan....

Like I said, I'm confused. :p

You are correct. The employer is only paying for their part of the insurance.

[poppy]

My husband is employed and he doesn't have health insurance through his employer.  In fact, it's still quite common in my area for small business employers not to offer health insurance.  The Marketplace plans aren't just for the unemployed.

 

I'm sorry, I had a senior moment, I really meant "The Exchange" and could not remember the word.
 

[Amy in NH]

nm.

[Haiku]

The owner of Hobby Lobby believes that he runs a religious business and that his employees should be held to his religious beliefs when accessing healthcare.

Because this is an "abortion" issue, people are falling all over themselves to defend "religious freedom." But if the issue were blood transfusions, HIV medications, or mental health care, I believe that people would have a more realistic view of the situation.

FTR, I am anti-abortion and I still think Hobby Lobby is wrong.

[HSmomof2]

This confuses me, though.
I guess I've always thought that the company had very little to do with the health insurance. Like the health insurance offered at DH's work is anthem - what is covered is based on the plan we choose through anthem, and the company has very little to do with any of it.
And by providing several options - the employer themselves aren't actually providing the bc, right? It's just part of the insurance plan....

Like I said, I'm confused. :p

 

I used to work for one of the larger Blue Shield plans, and no, the insurance plan offers a variety of benefits that corporations can choose from. So, basically, the corporations choose and pay for the benefits they want to provide their employees. Whenever we had customers call to complain that some benefit wasn't covered under their plan, we'd refer them back to their employers. The insurance company offers and administers the benefits, but the employer chooses them.

 

There are also 'pre-packaged'  plans offered to individuals and small businesses that don't have a lot of customization.

 

ETA: This would be different if Hobby Lobby is providing their employee benefits through the new  'exchanges'. However, with a corporation the size of Hobby Lobby, I would assume they would most likely be a 'self-insured' plan contracting with one or a few different insurance administrators for their benefits (Blue Cross, Blue Shield, Aetna, etc.).

[mamaraby]

And then the other question is, what is the longer reaching impact of a decision in favor? Can an employer decide they have a moral objection to vaccination and then refuse to cover vaccines or any appointments that talk about them? What if they disagree with blood transfusions?

If I can remember correctly, they even oppose the work around which was that the employer could buy health insurance without it, but the employee was able to get a birth control rider through the insurance company, free of charge, that would allow the employee to have the same preventative care coverage as everyone else.

[LucyStoner]

There is a Hobby Lobby opening in Seattle where the KMart was. I will be curious how well they do sales wise.

[zoobie]

The court deciding that these are abortifacients would directly lead to everyone under any kind of federal plan being potentially cut off from bc access since federal law forbids tax payer money to pay for abortions. It has wide reaching implications far beyond Hobby Lobby's employees.

And can open the door for any "religious" objections to treatment. JW's and blood transfusions, to start. What would a Christian Scientist corporation's health insurance include? Or a Pastafarian's?

And if corporations can hold religious beliefs, what's to limit them from asserting these beliefs on other matters?

It's a *huge* case.

[Mergath]

Does anyone know if, in the event that SCOTUS finds for Hobby Lobby, this would create a precedent that means any corporation can refuse to pay for insurance that covers a medical procedure or medication they deem "immoral"?  Or would this only apply to this specific case?

[Mrs Mungo]

And then the other question is, what is the longer reaching impact of a decision in favor? Can an employer decide they have a moral objection to vaccination and then refuse to cover vaccines or any appointments that talk about them? What if they disagree with blood transfusions?

That specific question is discussed (by the court) in one of the links I added in my post above.

If I can remember correctly, they even oppose the work around which was that the employer could buy health insurance without it, but the employee was able to get a birth control rider through the insurance company, free of charge, that would allow the employee to have the same preventative care coverage as everyone else.

I don't that is an option for them because it only applies to non-profits.

[Mrs Mungo]

Does anyone know if, in the event that SCOTUS finds for Hobby Lobby, this would create a precedent that means any corporation can refuse to pay for insurance that covers a medical procedure or medication they deem "immoral"? Or would this only apply to this specific case?

According to the court discussion of it (part of which is transcribed in one of my links), each case where a company wanted an exemption would need to be brought before the court and the court would decide the greater harm. It wouldn't be a blanket exemption, is that what you are asking?

[Mergath]

According to the court discussion of it (part of which is transcribed in one of my links), each case where a company wanted an exemption would need to be brought before the court and the court would decide the greater harm. It wouldn't be a blanket exemption, is that what you are asking?

 

Thanks for explaining.  And I think so, lol.  I'm not terribly informed when it comes to legal stuff like this. :P  A couple other people mentioned the same thing while I was typing.  JWs and blood transfusions, etc.  Even if they would have to go to court first, however, it's still scary that corporations could conceivably deny benefits to their employees based on private religious beliefs.

[zoobie]

Does anyone know if, in the event that SCOTUS finds for Hobby Lobby, this would create a precedent that means any corporation can refuse to pay for insurance that covers a medical procedure or medication they deem "immoral"? Or would this only apply to this specific case?

It provides precedence for an exception. Precedence is big in SCOTUS-land. If you allow exemptions for this religion, why not others? Can't favor one religion or say a religion's beliefs are more/less valid than another.

There are also questions about what it would do to the corporate veil, whether corporations are separate entities from their owners. Potential bad news for corporations.

[Crimson Wife]

If I can remember correctly, they even oppose the work around which was that the employer could buy health insurance without it, but the employee was able to get a birth control rider through the insurance company, free of charge, that would allow the employee to have the same preventative care coverage as everyone else.

The religious exemption that the Obama administration offers is so narrowly worded that it does not apply to most religious non-profits. There are a bunch of Catholic schools and hospitals suing because they do not qualify for the narrow religious exemption. Basically the Obama exemption only applies if the employer has a hiring mandate of church membership. So Catholic schools and hospitals that employ non-Catholics do not qualify for the exemption, which is total B.S. in my mind.

Don't like the your religiously-affiliated employer's policy of not paying for contraception or sterilization? Go work for a secular employer.

[Mergath]

The religious exemption that the Obama administration offers is so narrowly worded that it does not apply to most religious non-profits. There are a bunch of Catholic schools and hospitals suing because they do not qualify for the narrow religious exemption. Basically the Obama exemption only applies if the employer has a hiring mandate of church membership. So Catholic schools and hospitals that employ non-Catholics do not qualify for the exemption, which is total B.S. in my mind.

Don't like the your religiously-affiliated employer's policy of not paying for contraception or sterilization? Go work for a secular employer.

 

If you're including Hobby Lobby in this, you have a broad definition of "religiously-affiliated."

[Mrs Mungo]

The religious exemption that the Obama administration offers is so narrowly worded that it does not apply to most religious non-profits. There are a bunch of Catholic schools and hospitals suing because they do not qualify for the narrow religious exemption. Basically the Obama exemption only applies if the employer has a hiring mandate of church membership. So Catholic schools and hospitals that employ non-Catholics do not qualify for the exemption, which is total B.S. in my mind.

Don't like the your religiously-affiliated employer's policy of not paying for contraception or sterilization? Go work for a secular employer.

Why doesn't the reverse hold true in your mind? If you want employees to hold to the religious ethics of your denomination, then you should only hire church members? Makes sense to me.

Certainly not every denomination and/or church holds identical beliefs, therefore one need not work for a secular organization, just one that fits with your beliefs. But, do all employees know which churches are against specific practices? Seems easier for the employer to weed them out.

Eta: I am only speaking of non-profits. I don't believe that corporations have religious rights.

[Crimson Wife]

If you're including Hobby Lobby in this, you have a broad definition of "religiously-affiliated."

Just because a business is for-profit doesn't necessarily make it not religiously-affiliated. There are plenty of Christian publishers, bookstores, and other businesses that may not be a non-profit but any reasonable person would say are religiously-affiliated.

A general merchandiser like Hobby Lobby falls into more of a gray area. If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd want to see evidence that they are religious (such as being closed on Sundays like Chick-Fil-A). I'm not familiar with Hobby Lobby since AFAIK there aren't any close to me.

[Crimson Wife]

But, do all employees know which churches are against specific practices?

It is common knowledge that the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception. It's not some arcane part of doctrine that non-Catholics may not be aware of. To my mind, it would be like getting a job at a Jewish hospital and then being upset that the cafeteria doesn't serve pork.

[zoobie]

Just because a business is for-profit doesn't necessarily make it not religiously-affiliated. There are plenty of Christian publishers, bookstores, and other businesses that may not be a non-profit but any reasonable person would say are religiously-affiliated.

A general merchandiser like Hobby Lobby falls into more of a gray area. If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd want to see evidence that they are religious (such as being closed on Sundays like Chick-Fil-A). I'm not familiar with Hobby Lobby since AFAIK there aren't any close to me.

They are closed on Sundays, but they sell craft materials. They are a FOR PROFIT business. They are not a church or non-profit religious organization. Chick-fil-a is a FOR PROFIT business that sells fast food. They aren't a religious organization either.

[Mrs Mungo]

Just because a business is for-profit doesn't necessarily make it not religiously-affiliated. There are plenty of Christian publishers, bookstores, and other businesses that may not be a non-profit but any reasonable person would say are religiously-affiliated.

Having a loose religious affiliation or even religious profit-base doesn't make a for-profit company equal to a religion or religious non-profit under the law.

A general merchandiser like Hobby Lobby falls into more of a gray area. If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd want to see evidence that they are religious (such as being closed on Sundays like Chick-Fil-A). I'm not familiar with Hobby Lobby since AFAIK there aren't any close to me.

I don't know how that is relevant as far as the law goes? I could (in theory) hold a sincere religious belief that black people bear the mark of Cain and refuse to hire them, but I would be wrong under the law and would get sued. I could refuse to hire women managers due to a sincere religious belief that women cannot be in places of authority over men, but a for-profit business isn't allowed to do that under current law.

[zoobie]

It is common knowledge that the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception. It's not some arcane part of doctrine that non-Catholics may not be aware of. To my mind, it would be like getting a job at a Jewish hospital and then being upset that the cafeteria doesn't serve pork.

Can the Jewish hospital exempt trichinosis treatment from its health insurance plan?

[Mrs Mungo]

It is common knowledge that the Catholic Church opposes artificial contraception. It's not some arcane part of doctrine that non-Catholics may not be aware of. To my mind, it would be like getting a job at a Jewish hospital and then being upset that the cafeteria doesn't serve pork.

The Catholic Church isn't the only denomination. Putting the onus on the employer (the one asking for a special accommodation) makes it easier.

I don't see how those are equivalent. It is more like the Jewish hospital telling you that you can't use your salary to buy pork.

[kbutton]

Just because a business is for-profit doesn't necessarily make it not religiously-affiliated. There are plenty of Christian publishers, bookstores, and other businesses that may not be a non-profit but any reasonable person would say are religiously-affiliated.

A general merchandiser like Hobby Lobby falls into more of a gray area. If I were on the Supreme Court, I'd want to see evidence that they are religious (such as being closed on Sundays like Chick-Fil-A). I'm not familiar with Hobby Lobby since AFAIK there aren't any close to me.

 

Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays to allow employees to go to church. They close earlier than some other chains in the evenings as well to allow employees more family time. They often play instrumental hymns (no singing) and such in their stores. I am pretty sure they also pay very competitive wages and have good benefits compared to similar stores, but that is just something I've read somewhere, not something I know firsthand--the hours and reasons for them are usually posted at each store.

 

[Lady Marmalade]

Hobby Lobby is closed on Sundays to allow employees to go to church. They close earlier than some other chains in the evenings as well to allow employees more family time. They often play instrumental hymns (no singing) and such in their stores. I am pretty sure they also pay very competitive wages and have good benefits compared to similar stores, but that is just something I've read somewhere, not something I know firsthand--the hours and reasons for them are usually posted at each store.

 

Former Hob-Lob employee- you are correct with your information.  The benefits are very good compared to other retailers, the pay is beyond competitive, and each store is allowed flexibility with that.  If a particular store is doing very well with the bottom line, they translate that directly to their employees- starting pay can be quite high at the higher performing stores. 

[Amy in NH]

There is a Hobby Lobby opening in Seattle where the KMart was. I will be curious how well they do sales wise.

 

One just opened in NH.  I avoided them when I needed to pick up a few things for a project.

 

Vote with your dollars.
 

[ThatHomeschoolDad]

Male HL employees will probably still have Viagra covered, because while God abhores fertility control, he grants His holy pity and grace upon the male of his flock with broken hydraulics.

But seriously, if HL is incorporated, and not as a subchapter S, there are legal separations between the owners and the business, so the whole idea of an owner's beliefs mingling with corporate law seems a big shaky from the start. Granted, SCOTUS might still do many contoftions to get around that.

[jenangelcat]

Corporations have no business dictating women's reproductive health which is tied to overall health for women.  Whether they falsely believe that something causes an abortion is irrelevant.  It's women's health and not the business of anyone but a woman and her doctor.  Corporations are not religious entities and should not be able to discriminate based on religion.

[Jkacz]

One just opened in NH.  I avoided them when I needed to pick up a few things for a project.

 

Vote with your dollars.
 

 

I love the store in Manchester, NH.  The worst part is that it's so busy that the checkout lines take forever. 

 

 

The reason that an entity is formed as a corporation rather than a general partnership is to limit the liability of the owners.  But a Corporation still has owners/stockholders and they should be able to follow their beliefs in the running of their company.  This includes the hours that the stores are open and the benefit packages they provide to employees.  In this case, the business is owned by 1 family and they run their corporation based on those beliefs (ie closed on Sundays).  And it's not as if the owners are saying that employees can't get the morning after pill, just that they won't allow a healthcare plan that they pay a portion of to pay for it.  Many employers have conditions of employment that employees have disagreed with (ie flu shots for medical providers) and these have been upheld.  This is no different.

 

If you don't like the conditions of your employment (hours, pay or other benefits), go work someplace else. 

 

Jenn

[Moxie]

Corporations have no business dictating women's reproductive health which is tied to overall health for women.  Whether they falsely believe that something causes an abortion is irrelevant.  It's women's health and not the business of anyone but a woman and her doctor.  Corporations are not religious entities and should not be able to discriminate based on religion.

 

I don't equate not paying for some kinds of birth control (which are cheap or free at PP) with dictating a woman's reproductive health.
 

[poppy]

If you don't like the conditions of your employment (hours, pay or other benefits), go work someplace else.

 

They used to say that about wait staff at restaurants that allowed smoking. 

 

 

 

Many employers have conditions of employment that employees have disagreed with (ie flu shots for medical providers) and these have been upheld.

 

Difference is, requiring a flu shot impacts the workplace.  Monitoring and getting approval over the contents of, and outcome of, consultations between an employee and her private physician about her reproductive health is a whole different ballgame.

[Haiku]

If you don't like the conditions of your employment (hours, pay or other benefits), go work someplace else.

If you don't like the laws that govern how you run a business, don't run a business.

[BigMamaBird]

I don't equate not paying for some kinds of birth control (which are cheap or free at PP) with dictating a woman's reproductive health.
 

 

Exactly this.  They aren't saying their employees can't use Birth Control, they're saying they don't want to pay for it.  Big difference.

[Jenny in Florida]

Hobby Lobby approves of diaphragms and condoms but not hormonal birth control, aka The Pill, or Plan B.
It does not want your insurance to cover the pill or your doctor's consultations with you on the topic.

 

According to the piece I heard on NPR the other day, Hobby Lobby is willing to cover the Pill and most other forms of BC. They object to covering abortion and four types of BC (two types of IUDs, the "morning after" pill and the "week after" pill). The object only to covering BC that may prevent implantation of an already fertilized egg.

 

Liberal that I am, I admit to being ambivalent about this case. I can absolutely see, if I ever owned a large business, not wanting to be put in a position of paying for things for my employees that definitely offended my most deeply held values. As one of the lawyers for Hobby Lobby said, it doesn't seem quite fair to make them give up their religious freedoms just because they happen to be successful business owners.

 

I'm curious to see how this one turns out.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

I love the store in Manchester, NH.  The worst part is that it's so busy that the checkout lines take forever. 

 

 

The reason that an entity is formed as a corporation rather than a general partnership is to limit the liability of the owners.  But a Corporation still has owners/stockholders and they should be able to follow their beliefs in the running of their company.  This includes the hours that the stores are open and the benefit packages they provide to employees.  In this case, the business is owned by 1 family and they run their corporation based on those beliefs (ie closed on Sundays).  And it's not as if the owners are saying that employees can't get the morning after pill, just that they won't allow a healthcare plan that they pay a portion of to pay for it.  Many employers have conditions of employment that employees have disagreed with (ie flu shots for medical providers) and these have been upheld.  This is no different.

 

If you don't like the conditions of your employment (hours, pay or other benefits), go work someplace else. 

 

Jenn

 

A key difference is that when the family opted to form a corporation to limit their liability, they effectively separated the business from themselves.  What is being decided is if you draw a distinction between yourself and your company to protect you from liability related to actions of that company, can you then still claim that anything done by the company has to reflect your core beliefs?

 

 

This will be a very interesting decision.

[Mrs Mungo]

The reason that an entity is formed as a corporation rather than a general partnership is to limit the liability of the owners. But a Corporation still has owners/stockholders and they should be able to follow their beliefs in the running of their company. This includes the hours that the stores are open and the benefit packages they provide to employees.
<snip>
If you don't like the conditions of your employment (hours, pay or other benefits), go work someplace else.

HL still has a choice. They could not provide insurance and pay the fine instead.

And if you don't like rules that apply to big corporations, then you shouldn't run a big corporation.