It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

page: 12
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Freenrgy2
reply to post by Bone75
 


Why can't they be granted an exemption? After all, Pelosi and many other democrats are doing just that to business cronies in THEIR districts. What makes it o.k. for them to grant exemptions to these business, but not Hobby Lobby?

Don't you just love the fairness of politics.


I was wondering about that myself.




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 





MrSpad
Just a small point here. It is not happening. This would be a HOAX. And an older one.They are not closing any stores and they are not planning on closing any stores. Starting two years ago when people started spreading this Hobby Lobby began saying it was not true. They are in fact opening more and more stores. They also wish people would quit saying they are closing as it is bad for business.


oh good, never mind



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:57 AM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



Nice to see you admit you support discrimination. Is there anything else you would like forced on people? How about stoning a unruly child or making a slave of a girl that has never lain with a man. Those are in the bible why isn't this guy doing those things? Is he just another one of those pick and choose Christians?


A business should hold the right to turn away whomever they choose, whether customers or potential employees, for whatever reason they choose.

Don't want to hire/serve blacks? Fine.
Don't want to hire/serve Jews? Fine.
Don't want to hire/serve homosexuals? Fine.
Don't want to hire/serve women? Fine.
Don't want to hire/serve Caucasians? Fine.

And on and on and on and on. Of course, they would have to face the wrath of the people that would refuse to do business with them. But, that is what a free market is for.

That's not forcing anything on "the people." Making businesses follow your standards of "you have to hire/serve everyone" is the same as a religious person trying to enact laws to force us all to conform to their belief sets (something that you vehemently oppose). Either case is authoritarian.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



So, if a Jehovah's Witness-owned business refuses to provide insurance that covers blood transfusions, that's okay too, right?


Yes.


So, if a Scientologist-owned business refuses to provide insurance that covers mental health services and associated pharmaceuticals, that's okay too, right?


Yes.


So, if a Christian Scientist-owned business refuses to provide insurance that covers ANY medical procedure, that's okay too, right?



So, if a Muslim-owned business refuses to provide insurance that covers Jewish employees, that's okay too, right?


Yes.


Actually, wrong, on every count, and rightly so.


No. People should not be receiving forced benefits from their employers to begin with. The entire concept is financially authoritarian.

I am going to begin demanding that my congressmen write laws to force individuals (not businesses) to pay for my healthcare. I will start with you and Buster2010WhateverHisNameIs. I accept cash and money orders. No checks, credit, or debit transactions.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:44 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by grey580
 



You're missing the point however. What is a right is a womans right to choose how to live her life and make choices about her life.


Of course, that is only rational, and that woman can use the money that she has earned to implement those choices. Then all the bickering would end.


All things being equal yes I would agree with you.

However situations are not always equal. Women tend to make less $$$$ than men. If single with a kid she has even less money than a man to spend. And I can go on and on.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Flatfish
reply to post by Bone75
 


I totally disagree with you.


Screw em! For a party that advocates for getting government out of our business, they sure as hell are interested in retaining their own perceived right to get into our business.

Let them close their doors, I'm sure the other hobby stores around America will be more than happy to fill the gap.



Nonsense. There is a radical difference between government interference and conditions of employment. If the company's insurance is not what you want, you are free to go elsewhere. Not so much for federal mandates.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


That's a lot of screen space to state your mere disagreement.

Here, try something like this next time instead of wasting screen:

"I disagree with you, but you have your opinion, and I have mine."

The rest of your post is merely specious and silly. There is a difference between legislation that sets standards for employers nationally and legislation that regards one or two individuals. I'm sure you consider that a witty response; I do not.

I disagree with you, but you have your opinion and I have mine.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



That's a lot of screen space to state your mere disagreement.


You used a lot of screen space to post frivolous arguments.


Here, try something like this next time instead of wasting screen:

"I disagree with you, but you have your opinion, and I have mine."


Sometimes it helps to be more specific.


The rest of your post is merely specious and silly.


Now you're just attacking me.


There is a difference between legislation that sets standards for employers nationally and legislation that regards one or two individuals.


Some employers are individuals. It is a question of property and who has the rights.


I'm sure you consider that a witty response; I do not.


Witty? No. Serious? Yes. If you have the right to use the government to force an individual (employers) to not only pay for your wage, but to also pay for your "benefits,"--then I also hold the same right to use the government to force an individual (you) to at least pay for my benefits. Fair is fair.


I disagree with you, but you have your opinion and I have mine.


One of our opinions is valid, the other is invalid. The point of argument is deducing which is which. Since our views are opposite of each other, they cannot both be valid. That would be contradictory.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 



However situations are not always equal. Women tend to make less $$$$ than men. If single with a kid she has even less money than a man to spend. And I can go on and on.


Some women make more money than me. Should I get free things because of it?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:48 PM
link   

beezzer
Standing for one's principles.

How rare.

*applause*

Can't wait to see the folks come on here and tear him to shreds. . . . .



Standing for ones principles based on non scientific ideas and the wrong reasons is nothing to applause over.

So essentially, you are applauding someone who is losing jobs on completely inaccurate information.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   

nixie_nox

beezzer
Standing for one's principles.

How rare.

*applause*

Can't wait to see the folks come on here and tear him to shreds. . . . .



Standing for ones principles based on non scientific ideas and the wrong reasons is nothing to applause over.

So essentially, you are applauding someone who is losing jobs on completely inaccurate information.


So if you do not agree one someone's position or principles, you think the government should force them to do what you want?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


And I'm sure if they made more money this wouldn't be an issue.

But here we are.

You know. I understand the argument. And I'm not totally for contraception for everyone.

But some women need to be on the pill. Especially those with pcos.

Hobby Lobby would ban the pill even for women that needed it for a valid medical reason.

that ain't right.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


I'm not Christian, but I support their viewpoint on this. It's not black and white, I know, but I just don't see how anyone who creates a child (outside of violenty imposed intercourse), can destroy that life. I guess when you don't see it as life, it's easy to do.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:55 PM
link   

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


And I'm sure if they made more money this wouldn't be an issue.

But here we are.

You know. I understand the argument. And I'm not totally for contraception for everyone.

But some women need to be on the pill. Especially those with pcos.

Hobby Lobby would ban the pill even for women that needed it for a valid medical reason.

that ain't right.


Hobby Lobby isn't banning anything for anyone. They present what they are willing to cover and what they are not willing to cover. One has many choices: don't work for them and find someone with a more comprehensive plan, or pay for OCP out of pocket, or accept their terms of employment.

I wonder why people think that someone else not paying for something is "banning" or "persecution." Having the right to do something does not make one entitled to have someone else pay for it.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:59 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by buster2010
 



Nice to see you admit you support discrimination. Is there anything else you would like forced on people? How about stoning a unruly child or making a slave of a girl that has never lain with a man. Those are in the bible why isn't this guy doing those things? Is he just another one of those pick and choose Christians?


A business should hold the right to turn away whomever they choose, whether customers or potential employees, for whatever reason they choose.

Don't want to hire/serve blacks? Fine.
Don't want to hire/serve Jews? Fine.
Don't want to hire/serve homosexuals? Fine.
Don't want to hire/serve women? Fine.
Don't want to hire/serve Caucasians? Fine.

And on and on and on and on. Of course, they would have to face the wrath of the people that would refuse to do business with them. But, that is what a free market is for.

That's not forcing anything on "the people." Making businesses follow your standards of "you have to hire/serve everyone" is the same as a religious person trying to enact laws to force us all to conform to their belief sets (something that you vehemently oppose). Either case is authoritarian.


Sorry but religion is no reason why a person should deny anyone anything. Everything this pick and choose Christian wants to deny these people parts of their medical insurance actually goes against his religion. No where in the bible does it say he has the right to control parts of another persons life. His religion applies to him alone not him and everyone he meets and employs. So let me break it down so you can understand it better. When he is saying I won't pay for this because it's against my religion he IS forcing his religious views on other people by denying people that part of their medical insurance.

It also wouldn't hurt for you to study up on the free market a little bit. The free market is only worried about profit and denying people services because of silly things cuts into profit and that is bad for business.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 





Hobby Lobby isn't banning anything for anyone. They present what they are willing to cover and what they are not willing to cover. One has many choices: don't work for them and find someone with a more comprehensive plan, or pay for OCP out of pocket, or accept their terms of employment. I wonder why people think that someone else not paying for something is "banning" or "persecution." Having the right to do something does not make one entitled to have someone else pay for it.


Some states require that health plans require you to provide coverage for oral contraceptives.

I guess that they could go find another job... if there were jobs.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Bone75


By: David Green, the founder and CEO of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.


But now, our government threatens to change all of that.
which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. exnews]
.



Nothing worse than stupid Christians.

There is a reason these are called contraceptives, they are not abortion pills.

The morning after pill isn't an abortion pill. It prevents the egg from releasing so you don't have conception in the first place.

If they want to close an entire nation of stores because they don't understand the difference between contraception and RU-486.

Then they deserve to lose the business.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Kali74
I'm so sick of this ridiculous argument. Healthcare is a human right and should be adopted as such. There's no reason for a 1st world nation to have such a goddamn stupid issue affecting the lives of millions of Americans everyday. The very simple solution is single payer/universal... take health care out of the employers hands.

Aaaargh!

ETA: Give me my full compensation without benefits and I'll buy my own health care and pension. Man, I love some people scream at tyranny from government but are perfectly okay with their boss in control of their healthcare and pensions.
edit on 2/3/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



You have a really poor understanding of the word control. I work at my place of business at my will. I can walk away at any time. My employer provides insurance to compensate me for my labor in lieu of additional salary. If he is paying for it then he can make the decision regarding the provider and the type and amount of coverage that I get. If I dont like it I am always free to seek employment elsewhere or maybe actually decline the coverage and buy my own healthcare.

Now lets address your notion that healthcare is somehow a human right.
This is just so wrong its....its just unright. Healthcare is provided by Doctors and medical staff. In order for it to be a right that would require that you are somehow entitled to the labor of a doctor or nurse. That is no different than saying that you by the fact that you were born have a claim on the lifetime service of another person, thats called slavery. Now do you have a right to access healthcare? Yes I would agree that you have the right to medicate yourself and seek the services of medical staff. You give up some of that right if you are however not paying for it yourself.

So a business owner has the right to decide what he is willing to pay for regarding the healthcare coverage he is providing (you pay the piper, you get to call the tune). If you pay for your own coverage you can get them to cover anything they will cover. Also if you just go to the freaking drug store and buy a 8.00 USD box of condoms it will cost you less than an abortion or a morning after pill. You dont have a right to demand that your employer pay more money so that your sexual relations will be latex free.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Dragoon01

Kali74
I'm so sick of this ridiculous argument. Healthcare is a human right and should be adopted as such. There's no reason for a 1st world nation to have such a goddamn stupid issue affecting the lives of millions of Americans everyday. The very simple solution is single payer/universal... take health care out of the employers hands.

Aaaargh!

ETA: Give me my full compensation without benefits and I'll buy my own health care and pension. Man, I love some people scream at tyranny from government but are perfectly okay with their boss in control of their healthcare and pensions.
edit on 2/3/2014 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



You have a really poor understanding of the word control. I work at my place of business at my will. I can walk away at any time. My employer provides insurance to compensate me for my labor in lieu of additional salary. If he is paying for it then he can make the decision regarding the provider and the type and amount of coverage that I get. If I dont like it I am always free to seek employment elsewhere or maybe actually decline the coverage and buy my own healthcare.

Now lets address your notion that healthcare is somehow a human right.
This is just so wrong its....its just unright. Healthcare is provided by Doctors and medical staff. In order for it to be a right that would require that you are somehow entitled to the labor of a doctor or nurse. That is no different than saying that you by the fact that you were born have a claim on the lifetime service of another person, thats called slavery. Now do you have a right to access healthcare? Yes I would agree that you have the right to medicate yourself and seek the services of medical staff. You give up some of that right if you are however not paying for it yourself.

So a business owner has the right to decide what he is willing to pay for regarding the healthcare coverage he is providing (you pay the piper, you get to call the tune). If you pay for your own coverage you can get them to cover anything they will cover. Also if you just go to the freaking drug store and buy a 8.00 USD box of condoms it will cost you less than an abortion or a morning after pill. You dont have a right to demand that your employer pay more money so that your sexual relations will be latex free.



By that argument, then you don't have the right to an education, or to drive on roads or get police or fire coverage.

I hereby declare that you and your decedents do not have the right to an education.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


You like to read what you write, obviously. Calling my arguments frivolous doesn't prove anything. Your only response to each was a flat one word response. That's not argument, that's merely a "nyah-nyah; I'm right - you're wrong."

That's no longer an argument after kindergarten; maybe first grade.

Making a specific argument in counter to another statement might mean something indeed; sadly you didn't make any counter arguments to the examples I provided.

You're not being attacked; your argument (or in this case, a lack thereof) is being attacked. That's a useful difference to learn.

You created a false equivalency between a Federal statute (ACA) and the spurious example of your making a law that two members of ATS are going to pay your bills for you. The analogy remains ridiculous; even though you're trying to salvage it.

Some employers are individuals. Hobby Lobby is not.

You really have to remember that two things: your opinions are not facts, and your stated beliefs are not the equivalent of holy writ. An opinion can be based on many elements. Facts are only based on accurate observation conceptualized by accurate application of logic. Your argument about opinions is patently, by the definition of an opinion, incorrect.


You don't get to declare that an opposing position is invalid. You have to prove it. Why not do so?






edit on 14Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:15:46 -060014p022014266 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



new topics




 
48
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join