Hobby Lobby Files Suit over HHS Mandate, Could Face $1.3 Million in Fines

page: 2
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


May God bless their efforts very emphatically.

May they demonstrate that we are still somewhat the land of the free.

May they remind the traitorous leaders that government is to SERVE THE PEOPLE.




posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:36 AM
link   
reply to post by brice
 


So one more American business goes down the drain because they choose to stand for what they believe in.

Someday, you might find something you cherish being snatched away by the government and you would like people to understand how you feel, but they turn a deaf ear.

You refuse to see the quandary we are placed in with no way out. We will not sell our souls to a corrupt government.

A likely next target on their list is gun control. If they can squash religious freedom they are dismantling the U.S. Constitution and your 2nd Amendment rights will be no more respected that our 1st Amendment rights.

You are so willing to throw away what you have without even being aware that this is what is transpiring.
Like lambs lead to slaughter.

You grumble that everyone should pay their fair share, while people are willing to go to jail rather than participate in something that goes against their conscience. Who is making the bigger sacrifice?

If the government demanded that mentally impaired children, must be eliminated and your child had a learning disability would you so willingly agree that the almighty government has the right to decide who lives and dies?
Welcome to the NWO, you will fit right in as long as you don't make waves.

Now is time to stand for what we believe in and it is sink or swim for our freedoms.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.

As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.


The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.

What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by zroth
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


Since when does an employer get to tell you how to live your life?

I am all for the owner believing what he wants but they are not allowed to change labor laws to afford those beliefs to supersede national, state and/or local labor laws.

The new socialist health care laws require some changes and there is a new cost of doing business associated. This is impacting some small, medium and even large corporations. Are we to believe that none of the insurance plans, at Hobby Lobby, offer these solutions within their current coverage? Kaiser, Group Health, Signa all have standard health insurance options for businesses.

I swear this country can manufacture drama everywhere just to ignore real problems that need focus.


Where is the employer telling people how to live their lives? What labor law do you refer to. There is no labor law, you are ill informed. The issue is not whether an insurance provider has a plan, it is whether someone should be forced to pay for that particular plan. Now tell me where someone is forced to work at Hobby Lobby? If you do not like their benefits package, move on.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by brice
The law of the land does not exclude retailers. Heck, I don't believe in taxes but I have to pay. Besides most of their employees don't have their religious convictions. So make them pay or fine them to death! America's health care is abysmal unless you are rich.
brice


Wow a whole post of multiple lines and you do not even touch on the actual issue. Bravo. Maybe next post you can discuss the actual issue though, which is whether the government can force an employer to violate their religious beliefs when the employer could care less about thier employees beliefs.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 05:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.

As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.


The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.

What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.


Its not the employer itself that would be paying for it. The employer is more the middle man in this. Its that the employer is being forced to provide employee access to insurance that provides for these services.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
All these companies that are all up in arms about the birth control clauses in the healthcare bill are poor christians.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's [Matthew 22:21]



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Evil_Santa
All these companies that are all up in arms about the birth control clauses in the healthcare bill are poor christians.

"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's [Matthew 22:21]



Nicely played,
but gamemanship and noise,
none the less.

The companies and churches would have gladly paid $6 a month to [color=gold] not
have contraception included in the coverage.

Maybe even $60 or $600.

But 1.3 Million

per day ?



Mike Grouchy



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   
You know, no one is asking him personally to change his views. They are stating that he is to follow the laws of the country that allows him to operate his business. Religion has no business in this issue. If he wishes to avoid fines and stay in operation he must abide by the law. Just like the rest of us. If he chooses to ignore the mandate he will pay fines or go to jail. Just like any other criminal.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


A corporation has no religious beliefs. Nor does it breath or bleed or defecate. It is a corporation not a person.
As I stated before. No one is forcing a person to alter their beliefs. The govt is forcing the Corporation to abide by the Law.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.

As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.


The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.

What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.


Its not the employer itself that would be paying for it. The employer is more the middle man in this. Its that the employer is being forced to provide employee access to insurance that provides for these services.


No, the employer is paying for it. People who work here are welcome to buy any coverage they want. Employers pay for health insurance in the US, I only pay $90 a month and my employer covers the rest. Everyone has access to insurance if they are willing to pay themselves.



posted on Sep, 13 2012 @ 11:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hawkmoon1972
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


A corporation has no religious beliefs. Nor does it breath or bleed or defecate. It is a corporation not a person.
As I stated before. No one is forcing a person to alter their beliefs. The govt is forcing the Corporation to abide by the Law.


Corporations have rights and responsibilities as a person. The goal of the corporation is determined by people. Since a corporation is a person, and it is run by people, it can be said the beliefs of the corporation mimick those whom it is run by.

What about Catholic institutions that are CLEARLY religious in nature? You seriously fail to grasp what is going on here. This is NOT the Government forcing corporations to abide by the law, this is the government CREATING a NEW law which forces a belief system on people and prevents them from practicing their religious beliefs. As I stated earlier, what would you think about the "law" I hypothesized?

This also has nothing to do with the "mandate", that is not the part that is being challenged, as he already provides insurance.



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 12:07 AM
link   
1.3 Million

per day?

How is this not religious persecution.

All you smug smarmy little word smiths
who are delicately dancing around the topic,
or dismissively clicking away,

You may be proved right.
The church may be forced to go to jail.
The old Gaol, the lockdown, the big house.

And the fact that it doesn't bother you,
at all,
that this is happening to a group you disapprove of
speaks volumes to how your fellow Americans
will feel when it is your turn
to be punished for your good deeds.

The Catholic church was the [color=gold] First
large organization to back the Civil Rights movement,
and many other things from the 60's and 70's.

So if it has come full cycle
I'll wager that your modern world/view - life/style
will be comming up soon after this,
if not next.


Mike Grouchy



posted on Sep, 14 2012 @ 08:51 AM
link   
I practice Asatru but I support Christians right to practice their religion. I will now shop at Hobby Lobby because of this. HHS mandate needs to be repealed.



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


No. it doesn't. What it IS is the government forcing the religious zealots to stop forcing THEIR beliefs on those around them. I have an excellent grasp of what is going on here. Religion is on the ropes and those who would force me to follow their misguided doctrine do not like it. It is MY body not yours. I will do with it what I choose. My job as your employee is to do the job you hired me for to the best of my ability. Your job is to ensure that I have a safe environment in which to do my job and to pay me for it. In our society part of that payment is in healthcare. You don't also get a say in what I use it for. As long as I do not stray from the bounds of the law. You get ZERO say in how I use that healthcare. You certainly have no right to disobey a law simply because your brand of mythology disapproves.
edit on 17-9-2012 by Hawkmoon1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   
A slippery slope if you ask me. What if a religious business owner doesn't want to cover blood transfusions based on his religious beliefs. What if the owner refuses to cover prescription medicine even if the employee goes into the hospital due to their religious beliefs?

Where do you draw the line?

It's easy enough to cheer for women being denied contraceptives, but how much cheering would you be doing if your child can't be treated due to some religious belief of the person that employs you?



posted on Sep, 17 2012 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.

As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.


The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.

What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.


Its not the employer itself that would be paying for it. The employer is more the middle man in this. Its that the employer is being forced to provide employee access to insurance that provides for these services.


No, the employer is paying for it. People who work here are welcome to buy any coverage they want. Employers pay for health insurance in the US, I only pay $90 a month and my employer covers the rest. Everyone has access to insurance if they are willing to pay themselves.


I live and work in the US, I'm well aware


I guess you could say that they are both paying for it, looking at it that way. But as a corporation of that size, they are required to provide access to health benefits for its employees. I dont know the exact requirements off the top of my head, unfortunately.

So here's the issue - the company has to provide access to health insurance. If all companies willing to provide that access to the employer are ones that conflict with the religious beliefs of the founder, what are they to do? They cant just say no, we're not providing insurance at all. I dont AGREE with both sides of this, but I see both sides. Its just a tough situation for everyone involved.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kaploink
A slippery slope if you ask me. What if a religious business owner doesn't want to cover blood transfusions based on his religious beliefs. What if the owner refuses to cover prescription medicine even if the employee goes into the hospital due to their religious beliefs?

Where do you draw the line?

It's easy enough to cheer for women being denied contraceptives, but how much cheering would you be doing if your child can't be treated due to some religious belief of the person that employs you?


Blood transfusions save lives. Contraceptives do not. If there is a case where a contraceptive is absolutely needed to save someones life and the birth control aspect is NOT the reason for taking it, there should be an allowance.



posted on Sep, 18 2012 @ 10:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by flyswatter

Originally posted by OccamsRazor04

Originally posted by flyswatter
Touchy issue here. While I would never suggest that a person get an abortion (other than in absolute life-threatening circumstances), I also believe that it is not my place to try and prevent a woman from doing it, within certain limitations anyway - not after a certain period of gestation, unless life threatening, etc.

As far as the company and the insurance company being forced to offer it, ugh ... its just a mess. On one hand I think that companies should have to abide by the law and provide for what is permissable by law. On the other hand, I dont think that the lack of providing these services due to religious beliefs justifies such a huge fine.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. Where that point is, who knows. I'm conflicted on this whole thing.


The issue is not whether women should be prevented or not from having an abortion. The issue is should we force person A who has a religious belief it is murder to pay for person B's abortion.

What if Government had a law that allowed parents to kill their firstborn on their tenth birthday, and the Government said their neighbors had to do it or face a $10,000 fine per day. If it is legal I as a citizen can not prevent that person from killing their firstborn, but government has no business forcing ME to do it.


Its not the employer itself that would be paying for it. The employer is more the middle man in this. Its that the employer is being forced to provide employee access to insurance that provides for these services.


No, the employer is paying for it. People who work here are welcome to buy any coverage they want. Employers pay for health insurance in the US, I only pay $90 a month and my employer covers the rest. Everyone has access to insurance if they are willing to pay themselves.


I live and work in the US, I'm well aware


I guess you could say that they are both paying for it, looking at it that way. But as a corporation of that size, they are required to provide access to health benefits for its employees. I dont know the exact requirements off the top of my head, unfortunately.

So here's the issue - the company has to provide access to health insurance. If all companies willing to provide that access to the employer are ones that conflict with the religious beliefs of the founder, what are they to do? They cant just say no, we're not providing insurance at all. I dont AGREE with both sides of this, but I see both sides. Its just a tough situation for everyone involved.


It should be stated up front, allow the system of supply and demand sort it out. If workers refuse to work there then the people will change. If workers do not care, there is no issue. If this is a hot topic some employers will capitalize and advertise they cover and be able to have their pick from more top talent. The government has NO business getting involved. People have free will, if you do not like the benefits package do NOT work there.



posted on Oct, 24 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
Obama Admin Tries to Stop Hobby Lobby’s HHS Mandate Lawsuit
10/24/12

www.lifenews.com...


The Obama administration filed legal papers today in an attempt to stop the lawsuit the Christian craft store Hobby Lobby brought against the HHS mandate, which violates the consciences of Christian companies.





new topics

top topics



 
17
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join