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: 18
48
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   

grey580

bbracken677

grey580
reply to post by bbracken677
 





It's about whether the govt has the right to FORCE an employer to provide a service that runs counter to the owners religious belief system.


So if the employer were a White Supremacist...
It's ok for him to discriminate against non whites?


ROFL...

You should take a college course in logic...seriously. Ridiculous argument.

I have rights, as do you, as guaranteed by the constitution. There is an amendment that applies to the above. There is no such constitutional protection afforded to free contraception. At this point I would use words such as obtuse, facile etc regarding your obviously erroneous and illogical attempt at drawing some kind of parallel.

Fail.

BTW...just out of curiosity....by your example above, are you implying that discriminating against whites is perfectly fine and acceptable?

ha




You have rights.

Your rights do not give you the right to deny someone else their rights.

I have rights.

My rights do not give me the right to deny someone else their rights.

Now there may not be a right for free contraception. And I'm on the fence about having to buy anyone contraception myself. But what is clear is that Oral Contraceptives are used to help women lessen the pain of polycystic ovary syndrome. So the Oral Contraceptive in this case is used not as contraception but as a medicine.

So ask yourself this question. Does hobby lobby have the right to deny someone access to medicine? If a woman is a lesbian and will never use the oral contraception as a means of birth control ever. And just so you know. I know a women that's a lesbian that has to take the pill to control her pcos pain. So it's not a theoretical question.

as for your btw question. No. It's never ok to discriminate against anyone.


However, Hobby Lobby isn't denying anyone's access to medicine. They simply are not paying for every medicine that someone may want.

You said it yourself in your post above. Your rights do not mean you can infringe the rights of others. One person's right to contraceptive, for example, does not obligate someone else to pay for them, just as one's right to free speech does not obligate someone else to buy them a typewriter.




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:40 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 



I agree that there are some very valid reason for not hiring someone.

But race isn't one of them.


Any person of any race is welcome in my home, but I am not going to forcibly hold my neighbor to the same standard.

That is my entire point.

You may not agree, but it is neither your home nor your business.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


As far as your real world examples of freedom and liberty, they are still not absolute...not to the degree that you are holding the concept of "free market" to...

Even slaves had periods during the day when they could exercise a modicum of freedom. Some had a great deal of freedom in how and when they exercised their duties and even had it better than their poor white sharecroppers. Granted...that was rare. It wasn't all whips and chains, you know. As in anything else in life, there were degrees but no absolutes. No doubt to those enslaved, there felt like absolutes...no argument there.

Even the most tyrannical of nations could not totally limit freedom, to the degree you are demanding of a real world example of "free market", in any form, fashion or manner.

Tyranny and liberty...freedom and slavery (not the only opposite of freedom, but it suffices for argument's sake) and free market and fully regulated market. They are all opposites. In their purest forms, as you have defined, they do not, nor have they ever existed.

To deny the existence of the concepts, to deny the existence of their influence, is ignorant (not saying you are denying the existence of the concepts, before you get your dander up lol )

I really enjoy this discussion, btw. Are we getting off topic here?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:50 PM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


So...then you believe there are zero examples of how the free market concept is superior to it's direct opposite? REally?

Consider what you are saying...the direct opposite of the full concept of free market...

Look at the most heavily regulated markets in the world and tell me they are superior in ANY way to those who are the least regulated.

Really?


Now you're just weaseling and throwing up illogic to see what sticks.
(Which is my way of saying "I'm enjoying the conversation too.")

Quote where I stated that there were "zero examples" of anything. I ask for positive examples; and none are provided.

Quote where I have made an argument for the "direct opposite" of your "free market concept" whatever that may be.

Actually though, skip over all that garbage, now we've acknowledged that "the free market" is a concept rather than an actual real-world economic system.

Exactly which "free market concept" are you espousing then? Smith's? Von Mises'? Friedman's? Rand's? Nixon's? Reagan's? Ryan's?

... and now we're comparing "heavily regulated" markets with "least regulated" ones? That's completely different from your Fantasyland Free Market isn't it?

Have at it though, now that we're back in the real world -- make a claim and provide examples.

I'd love to see some real-world examples of how any of this relates to the non-existent religious freedoms of a corporate entity (heading back for the topic ... LOL)
edit on 17Tue, 04 Feb 2014 17:52:24 -060014p052014266 by Gryphon66 because: Desnarkified.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 05:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I will, although obviously, you missed the point of my last post by a good light-year. Right now I am going out for dinner with the wife.

Provide examples of absolute freedom, liberty, and their opposites while I dig up the examples you requested.

BTW...I never claimed that the free market was NOT a concept.

Anyways...wifey is ready, gotta go.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:05 PM
link   
Furthermore, and in general, how far do any of you conceive that these individual interpretations of "religious freedom" can extend?

What if I claim that "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" frees me from paying taxes?

What if I claim that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" permits me, as a sado-masochist, to walk into the public square and start lashing others with a bullwhip?

What if I claim that "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death" permits me, as a parent, to shoot my kid in the face when he cusses at me?

... and on and on.

It's ludicrous.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


The owner of Hobby Lobby has religious freedom.

Why is it OK for the individual to use government to force Hobby Lobby to pay their salary and pay for their commodities? We earn a salary so that we may provide for ourselves. Why does Hobby Lobby have to buy medical insurance for it's employees? How is that philosophically moral?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Gryphon66
Furthermore, and in general, how far do any of you conceive that these individual interpretations of "religious freedom" can extend?

What if I claim that "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's" frees me from paying taxes?

What if I claim that "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" permits me, as a sado-masochist, to walk into the public square and start lashing others with a bullwhip?

What if I claim that "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death" permits me, as a parent, to shoot my kid in the face when he cusses at me?

... and on and on.

It's ludicrous.


Actually, I agree with you. Each of those instances would be ludicrous, but that's not what is taking place.

"I am going to force you to buy me things, if you don't buy them for me you're forcing your religion on me." That's basically what this entire argument is about. Which is why the concept of a free market was brought up. It would fix this issue.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:13 PM
link   

bbracken677
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


I will, although obviously, you missed the point of my last post by a good light-year. Right now I am going out for dinner with the wife.

Provide examples of absolute freedom, liberty, and their opposites while I dig up the examples you requested.

BTW...I never claimed that the free market was NOT a concept.

Anyways...wifey is ready, gotta go.



My position, to be best pursued in another thread at another time, would be that a mixed economy is best. I think that's what you're positing as well in fact.

However, the folks who bleat about a mythical "free market" are not talking about that. They are indulging in idealism that is simply rancidly utopian horsefeathers.

Enjoy dinner.
Let's let these folk argue about religion some more.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by Gryphon66
 


The owner of Hobby Lobby has religious freedom.

Why is it OK for the individual to use government to force Hobby Lobby to pay their salary and pay for their commodities? We earn a salary so that we may provide for ourselves. Why does Hobby Lobby have to buy medical insurance for it's employees? How is that philosophically moral?


The owner of Hobby Lobby doesn't pay for employee insurance; the corporation Hobby Lobby does.

Hobby Lobby is not being forced to pay for condoms, it's being required to provide health insurance to employees under specific terms embodied in the ACA.

What folks use their insurance for is up to them.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



Hobby Lobby is not being forced to pay for condoms, it's being required to provide health insurance to employees under specific terms embodied in the ACA.


OK.

Why is Hobby Lobby being forced to provide their employees with health insurance? That is still "buy me things, otherwise your forcing your religion on me."

Insurance costs money.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


A home is a private place yet a business is a public place.

And different laws apply.

Apples and oranges.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:25 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



Hobby Lobby is not being forced to pay for condoms, it's being required to provide health insurance to employees under specific terms embodied in the ACA.


OK.

Why is Hobby Lobby being forced to provide their employees with health insurance? That is still "buy me things, otherwise your forcing your religion on me."

Insurance costs money.


And that is the salient point. What right does the federal government have to force anyone to buy any product and then dictate what that product encompasses?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


A home is a private place yet a business is a public place.

And different laws apply.

Apples and oranges.


Why? Why should one give up autonomy of his private property to the state simply because he attempts to engage in commerce?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:27 PM
link   

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


A home is a private place yet a business is a public place.

And different laws apply.

Apples and oranges.


No.

A business can be privately owned just like a home.

The raging mob does not have the right to dictate what the owner does with his business.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:28 PM
link   

NavyDoc

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


A home is a private place yet a business is a public place.

And different laws apply.

Apples and oranges.


Why? Why should one give up autonomy of his private property to the state simply because he attempts to engage in commerce?


Exactly. We were never supposed to.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by grey580
 


Actually, by insinuating that a business is a "public place" you are implying that we all somehow, collectively, own every business in the US.

We don't.

It reminds me of when the smoking ban was enacted for businesses in Ohio. The mob was allowed to vote on whether or not business owners could allow smoking in their bars and restaurants.

If we can vote on such matters concerning privately owned businesses, then we can also vote on such matters for privately owned homes. If a business owner has to put up with the tyranny of the majority, then why not home owners?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 06:36 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by grey580
 


Actually, by insinuating that a business is a "public place" you are implying that we all somehow, collectively, own every business in the US.

We don't.

It reminds me of when the smoking ban was enacted for businesses in Ohio. The mob was allowed to vote on whether or not business owners could allow smoking in their bars and restaurants.

If we can vote on such matters concerning privately owned businesses, then we can also vote on such matters for privately owned homes. If a business owner has to put up with the tyranny of the majority, then why not home owners?


This. I think that when people use the coercive power of the government to force other people to do things they want, the forget that they are giving government the power and precedent to be used to force them to do things they don't want. AS long as the power of the state is swinging their way and that people they don't like are being forced to do things, they are happy with it. Eventually the pendulum swings and they find themselves on the receiving end of an intrusive force they helped create.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:21 PM
link   

LewsTherinThelamon
reply to post by Gryphon66
 



Hobby Lobby is not being forced to pay for condoms, it's being required to provide health insurance to employees under specific terms embodied in the ACA.


OK.

Why is Hobby Lobby being forced to provide their employees with health insurance? That is still "buy me things, otherwise your forcing your religion on me."

Insurance costs money.


Health insurance is part of compensation. They aren't regulating how the business is run, they're regulating how the employees are compensated. Something that has a long standing tradition of being necessary and a good thing (minimum wage laws and such), though I know people oppose those too.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 07:24 PM
link   

Bone75

MystikMushroom
Well, there's a ton of other craft stores.


Yes, and I'm sure many of them are taking applications for part time positions at minimum wage, with no benefits whatsoever. Go work at one of those stores and leave Hobby Lobby alone.


Sad, but you're probably right. What I was referring to was the fact that I don't have to shop at Hobby Lobby. I can go to Michael's or many other craft stores if I don't like what HL is doing.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join