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: 13
48
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:08 PM
link   
Well, there's a ton of other craft stores.

This is very immature on HL in my opinion. How about one of their "family members" runs for office? How about they "pay to play" like other businesses and buy off politicians?

This only will hurt their employees, and for for what -- to make a point? It reminds me of a childish temper tantrum along the lines of the Tea Party government shut down.

The more the right-wing conservatives pull stunts like this, the more people are going to gravitate to the middle and left. The Republican party is becoming so radicalized and splintered, many conservative leaning people I know are starting to feel embarrassed.

We can't stay stuck in that fake 1950's post WWII "nuclear family utopia" forever.




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:09 PM
link   

buster2010
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.



And he has every right to close shop if he does not agree with those that try to force their own views on HIS place of business.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:11 PM
link   

NavyDoc

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?



If they are breaking civil rights laws, absolutely.

As someone else pointed out, funny how Christians never get up in arms about Viagra, it is only women's medications they worry about.

But you have completely missed my point anyways.

The morons are calling contraceptives, abortion pills. They are pro fetus people.

These are not abortion pills, they contraceptives, they prevent conception in the first place.

Like I said, if they want to close all of their businesses on totally inaccurate data, don't let the door hit you on the way out.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:14 PM
link   

buster2010

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.



You dont understand this either. You are using terms like control, deny and force in all the wrong context. No one is forced to work for Hobby lobby. The employees are not under control nor are they being denied birth control. You included the following phrase "when he is saying I won't pay for this because its against my religion..." you jump right to the religion part and completely pass over the "paying for this" part. We get it you dont like Christians, I aint too impressed with them either but their refusal to purchase something is not forcing someone else to go without. No one is forcing the employees to go without Birth Control. Their Doctors will write the perscriptions and they can go right down to the corner CVS and pay the cost of those pills from their own pocket. Now that may mean that they cant buy something else that week that they would like to buy but we all make sacrafices in life.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by nixie_nox
 


So what civil rights laws are being broken?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:20 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon




Sex itself is not a basic need because you will not die without it. You are just grasping at straws.



Actually, it is. Not having it causes a wide range of psychological and mental issues for a person.


edit on 4-2-2014 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:21 PM
link   
The argument is not about whether contraception or abortions are right or wrong.

The argument is not about who should pay for what or whether healthcare should be universally available or not.

The argument is whether a corporation has a right to religious freedom, and whether the corporation's principals can evade established law based on such an argument.

A corporation does not have religious freedom. That is established in the US by legal precedent.

There is nothing in the First Amendment that states you don't have to obey the laws of the land when you decide not to. In this case, that "you" also refers to corporate entities.

The First Amendment says that the US will not establish a religion or prevent the free exercise thereof.

There is nothing in the ACA that does either of those things, as case after case has proven.
edit on 14Tue, 04 Feb 2014 14:24:45 -060014p022014266 by Gryphon66 because: Types.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:22 PM
link   
reply to post by buster2010
 



Sorry but religion is no reason why a person should deny anyone anything.


It's a matter of property. If one person starts a business, all of the assets associated with said business solely belong to the owner. What the owner and the employee agree upon in terms of compensation is a private contract that nobody else is a party to. We cannot use the government to add clauses to private contracts. Or to force people to dish out their property for any reason. Getting the state involved in private, financial transactions is authoritarian. It is the opposite of free market principles.

In my house, if I don't want to allow someone in for whimsical and absurd reasons, no one can do anything about it because the house is my property. The same reasoning applies to the business world. Except that, businesses have to evolve with market demand. In today's US, if we had a truly free market, I would bet both of my testicles that bigots would go bankrupt. And good riddance. But, it is morally wrong to use the government to force businesses to acquiesce to our wishes.

A free market system really is a lot like natural selection, only, it's being applied to the evolution of an economy.


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.


So? I mean, honestly, so what? With everything that I stated above, he has the right to follow whatever religion he wants. He can do what he wants with his property. Individuals and businesses must have the freedom to choose. Consumers are not ignorant. I guarantee, the market knows exactly what it is doing.


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.


Correction. The market is concerned with profit and loss. For a business to reap the reward, they have to please the market (primarily, us). If we were a pure free market, hypothetically, and this guy was doing things that the public did not like, we would stop shopping there. To make a difference, we would have to. His business would tank, and rightfully so.

Maybe his company would be bought-out by owners that don't suck.
Maybe a competing company with a better model would put him out of business. Seriously, the possibilities are endless.

Healthcare is not a natural right. The whole "right to life" meant we have the right to defend ourselves against something that would unjustly do us harm. But healthcare? That's somebodies job. That is their labor. We do not have the right to another individual's labor. I cannot vicariously use my employer to buy things for me, that is the entire point of receiving payment for the work you do--so you can buy things for yourself.

Our entire market has been progressively more and more regulated for the past 100 years. What we are seeing now is the cumulative result of all of the laws that we have put into place to meddle with the market. When something fails with the economy, our first inclination is to write more laws to stop it from happening again--but, that is the cause of the problem to begin with.
edit on 4-2-2014 by LewsTherinThelamon because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:23 PM
link   
this poor poor owner
www.forbes.com...

only worth 5 billion...and of course he can't spare any of that for his employees. why? because he might go broke, and Jesus doesn't want his billionaires to go broke



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   

nixie_nox

NavyDoc

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?



If they are breaking civil rights laws, absolutely.

As someone else pointed out, funny how Christians never get up in arms about Viagra, it is only women's medications they worry about.

But you have completely missed my point anyways.

The morons are calling contraceptives, abortion pills. They are pro fetus people.

These are not abortion pills, they contraceptives, they prevent conception in the first place.

Like I said, if they want to close all of their businesses on totally inaccurate data, don't let the door hit you on the way out.


What civil rights laws are being broken?

How is not having someone else pay for you to have something you want a violation of your rights?

LOL. "Pro fetus" "morons" "inaccurate data." Are you really upset about civil rights or are you just following along with pre-existing bigotry and hatred?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   

jimmyx

this poor poor owner
www.forbes.com...

only worth 5 billion...and of course he can't spare any of that for his employees.


Who cares?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   

thesaneone

buster2010
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.



And he has every right to close shop if he does not agree with those that try to force their own views on HIS place of business.



tough crap...HIS business operates under OUR laws, not god's laws... he can sell the business if doesn't want to follow the law



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 


Try again.

This has nothing to do with money



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:30 PM
link   

jimmyx

thesaneone

buster2010
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.



And he has every right to close shop if he does not agree with those that try to force their own views on HIS place of business.



tough crap...HIS business operates under OUR laws, not god's laws... he can sell the business if doesn't want to follow the law


Okay, let's operate under our laws. Where does the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, state that the federal government can mandate what a private employer provides as part of their employment contract?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



The argument is not about who should pay for what or whether healthcare should be universally available or not.


That is the core of this entire issue. If people didn't have the attitude that they have a right to another person's property, we wouldn't be having this argument.

I have no problem ignoring these laws.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:34 PM
link   
reply to post by jimmyx
 



Yup and that's what he is going to do if he is pushed.
I don't see any problems with that.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


Can you point to a modern example of a nation the size of the United States that has a "free market" economy in the terms you're using? One in which there is no governmental regulation of commerce at any level? Thanks in advance.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

nixie_nox

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.




Now your starting to understand what freedom really is. Your right we dont have a "RIGHT" to those. Are people in the Congo suffering human rights abuse because they dont have a local fire department! Thats absurd. You have a right to life liberty and property. What you do with it is up to you. Education, public safety and healthcare all depend on the efforts of someone else. Your rights cannot exist based on a portion of the life of someone else. Thats counter to the very fabric of human rights.

Your declaration just lays out plainly your mistaken belief that you have a part in any decision regarding my life or my children. You dont nor do you have the justification to demand that government use its police power to become part of that decision either. When more people begin to understand this we will get back to the way the government was intended to operate.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

nixie_nox

LewsTherinThelamon




Sex itself is not a basic need because you will not die without it. You are just grasping at straws.



Actually, it is. Not having it causes a wide range of psychological and mental issues for a person.


edit on 4-2-2014 by nixie_nox because: (no reason given)



So I guess we have to pay for hookers now as well as the birth control pills and the mental health of pimple faced basement hobbits that cant get laid?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:39 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



The argument is not about who should pay for what or whether healthcare should be universally available or not.


That is the core of this entire issue. If people didn't have the attitude that they have a right to another person's property, we wouldn't be having this argument.

I have no problem ignoring these laws.


You are quite simply incorrect. This discussion is about Hobby Lobby's decision to argue that it is not subject to the terms of the ACA because of religious freedom. Everything else is superfluous to the question at hand.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join