Hobby Lobby Hypocrisy

Besides, you owe me now...for helping to make your thread a resounding success, intellectually stimulating and a reality check for all who are willing to think for themselves.

rickynews
Sure, how about this Fact...There wouldn't even be a discussion on Hobby Lobby's employee health insurance plan coverages if they...
" liked their current plan, then they could keep it"

Well, actually it would still be an issue because up until 2012 their "current plan" covered Plan B and Ella. Although until 2012 they didn't seem to care about it. Seems to me like once they were backed up by some "Political Think Tanks and their Money" to go against the ACA, they didn't mind paying for contraception.

However, as far as your statement about "liked their current plan, then they could keep it" obama lie. I agree that was a big fat lie that he got caught red handed on. But like I pointed out, that still changes nothing.

To your point then (regarding my Michelle Obama example), can you provide evidence that Hobby Lobby has bought products specifically from Chinese companies or individuals that force abortions in China? If not, then accusing Lobby of that is pure conjecture and speculation and not
based on any evidence or facts.

rickynews
To your point then (regarding my Michelle Obama example), can you provide evidence that Hobby Lobby has bought products specifically from Chinese companies or individuals that force abortions in China? If not, then accusing Lobby of that is pure conjecture and speculation and not
based on any evidence or facts.

edit on 7-4-2014 by rickynews because: (no reason given)

The China connection wasn't ever my argument so I'll let someone else field that one, although I'm pretty sure that has already been covered in this thread if I remember correctly.

My argument has been the hypocrisy about them paying into companies manufacturing those drugs and allowing them in their insurance plans up until 2012. The china connection never really interested me much and I haven't looked into it all that closely so I'm not really the one who should be answering your question about that.

Fair enough. Yet, aren't they (Hobby Lobby)...and all of us for that matter..., free to change our minds, or reconsider our previous positions, including who, why and what we support or believe in ?

Are any of us deserving of being called "hypocrites" for simply giving an issue another look, or reconsidering things that may have been previously overlooked, and changing our minds ?

In my opinion, a strong case could be made that "we are all hypocrites".

According to David Green, the owner of Hobby Lobby:

"We're Christians, and we run our business on Christian principles. I've always said that the first two goals of our business are (1) to run our business in harmony with God's laws, and (2) to focus on people more than money.

LOL!

Being Christians, we don't pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don't cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one."

What biblical principles?

Apparently,when it comes to purchasing cheap goods from Chinese slave labor, Hobby Lobby's "Christian values" are nowhere to be seen. Yet when it comes to telling its employees how to run their private lives, suddenly, it's "Christian values" time!

Oh. Those biblical principles! Tyranny and slavery. Got it!

Source

One of the Biblical principles he probably is referring to is: "Thou shall not kill".

rickynews

In my opinion, a strong case could be made that "we are all hypocrites".

Hmmmm.....If I answer Yes to that question, then I'm a hypocrite. But if I answer no to that question, then I'm a liar.

Good move....Do you play chess???

If we are all hypocrites, the word ceases to have a distinct meaning.

So even if we are usually are, dialogue requires that we act as though we occasionally aren't.

Now that makes sense!

reply to post by windword

I just re-read again the document I referred to.

Care to try again.

reply to post by BritofTexas


Awe, that is cute. All grown up and trying to be a Mod.

Yes, the constitutionality is in question. Would you like to know how that is very very evident??? Because it is before the Supreme Court.


Maybe a US Civics class is in order, for a displaced Brit.

macman
reply to post by windword

 

I just re-read again the document I referred to.

Care to try again.

Last time I checked, there is no Constitutional right to have Health Care, nor is there a right to get birth control paid for by your employer.

First of all, for the umteenth time, health care insurance coverage isn't free. It's part of a compensation package that the employer pays into, all well as the employee in payroll premium deductions and through their co-pays. So please stop conflating the issue.

Secondly, you are wrong, birth control, in this situation, is protected by the US Constitution.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and subsequent legislation also declared a strong legislative policy against discrimination in public schools and colleges which aided in desegregation. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination in federally funded programs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employment discrimination where the employer is engaged in interstate commerce. Congress has passed numerous other laws dealing with employment discrimination. See Employment Discrimination. www.law.cornell.edu...

In December 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided prescription drugs to their employees but didn't provide birth control were in violation of Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prevents discrimination on the basis of sex.

www.alternet.org...

Griswold v. Connecticut

Roe v. Wade

Eisenstadt v. Baird

reply to post by windword


Yeah, because that is why it is before the supreme court and not dismissed, because of the 2000 ruling.


Seems that there is a real issue with a company being forced into providing a prescription drug.


Guess the SCOTUS didn't get the memo.

And for the Millionth time, can you please show me where it states I have the right to Birth Control here. en.wikipedia.org...

So, also, then my health care should be paying for condoms as well.

reply to post by macman

So, also, then my health care should be paying for condoms as well.

FYI you do not need a prescription for condoms. If you did it would be covered.

reply to post by Grimpachi


Sounds like discrimination.

The whole premise is that birth control be provided for "free", regardless if it is over the counter or not.

Why is it that women can only get free birth control?



This whole thing is a

reply to post by macman

Yeah, because that is why it is before the supreme court and not dismissed, because of the 2000 ruling.

One would think....but no. This is before the SCOTUS because of Barack Obama hatred and the ACA he spearheaded. The ACA incorporates the already existing precedent established in 1964, in Tittle VII and the subsequent 2000 ruling.

This whole argument is about religious people thinking that their beliefs give them the right to break established codes and laws in order to discriminate against certain groups of people, whether it be the LGBT community, women, or whoever. It's a very sad sign of the last throes of an ignorant and bigoted mindset that will be shown to have been on the wrong side of history.

reply to post by macman

macman
The whole premise is that birth control be provided for "free", regardless if it is over the counter or not.

That's not true. If the company offers prescription coverage (not over the counter), that must include birth control or else it's sexual discrimination.

In 2000, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ruled that companies that provided insurance for prescription drugs to their employees but excluded birth control were violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Source

And it's not sexist...

Effective for all new private health plans written on or after August 1, 2012, plans must now cover, without out-of-pocket costs, all FDA-approved birth control options (to include the pill, Ortho Evra Patch, NuvaRing, IUDs, Implanon and Depo Provera) as well as sterilization procedures (vasectomies, tubal ligation, Essure, and Adiana). Plans will also allow for patient education and contraceptive counseling for all women of reproduction age.

ACA Includes Vasectomies

reply to post by windword


You forgot to add G. Bush and the Koch brothers in your retort.


Nothing like people marching to the beat of forcing others to do something they think is right.