Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

Aazadan

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.

Regulating how employees are compensated IS regulating how the business is run as compensating employees is part of running a business.

Aazadan

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.

But why? Why is it OK to force anyone to give extra?

NavyDoc

Aazadan

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.

Regulating how employees are compensated IS regulating how the business is run as compensating employees is part of running a business.

Then you support slavery if that is what the market will allow?

LewsTherinThelamon
But why? Why is it OK to force anyone to give extra?

What do you define as extra? Vacations, insurance, stock, take home pay, PTO, these are all various components of compensation. Walking backwards with your logic it's ok to offer zero compensation. Anything beyond that is extra. Why is it ok to mandate any compensation at all because everything is extra when compared to nothing.

reply to post by Aazadan

What do you define as extra? Vacations, insurance, stock, take home pay, PTO, these are all various components of compensation.

Everything aside from the wage or salary agreed upon between the employer and employee is extra. Anything that you would use your money to buy yourself is extra.

If you and your employer agree, in a private transaction, to all the benefits, cool.

Walking backwards with your logic it's ok to offer zero compensation. Anything beyond that is extra.

No. That is not rational at all. If you do work for someone, you have the right some form of payment in return. If you are receiving money, awesome. You can buy things with money. Why do you need money, and then all the other things that you can buy with money?

Why is it ok to mandate any compensation at all because everything is extra when compared to nothing.

Ah. "If I don't get all my benefits I might as well work for free."

OK.

And no. If you are providing a service to an employer you deserve compensation, otherwise it's slavery.

My question is very simple. Why is it OK to use government to force an employer to give you, not only your wage, but things that you could easily buy with your wage?

Are you greedy and just trying to use government to rob people? I'm pretty sure that is the correct answer.

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?

For many reasons.

Health inspections in restaurants, code violations, etc.

You have a certain level of freedoms yes. But that doesn't mean that you have carte blanche to do things that can be detrimental to others.

LewsTherinThelamon
If you and your employer agree, in a private transaction, to all the benefits, cool.

A couple years back we had a bust at one of our mexican restaurants here in town. The owner would find people with bad records that could never get a job anywhere. He would put them up in an apartment he owned (about 300 sqft for 12 people) and provide them with some basic food. He offered them no other payment, just basic shelter and meals. They accepted the offer. Does that make it fair? The government certainly didn't seem to think so, the guy is currently in jail for using slave labor.

People have to accept jobs, very often especially for people working these types of no skill jobs there is no bargaining or agreement over compensation there is "I will give you enough to pay rent". And the person must accept it. That is the reality. If minimum wage laws didn't exist, they would be offering even less.

The existence of minimum wage laws, and them being found constitutional means health coverage can also be mandated as part of that minimum compensation. If everyone has to have full coverage, then everyone has to have full coverage. It's not any different from mandating that people have to be paid $3, $5, $7, or $15 per hour and falls under the realm of compensation.

grey580
reply to post by Bone75

 

Oh my brain.

There's a zillion other regulations on the books in this country for businesses but somehow this one here is a deal breaker? BS.

And they are basing their decision on an assumption that someone "MIGHT" take one of these pills.

I find it highly ironic that these guys are using their first amendment right to take away the right of someone else to make a choice about their life.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. Your rights do not give you the right to take away the rights of others. That your rights begin where my rights end and vice versa.

And this sets a precedent. Christians can say no to contraceptives. Now can Jews refuse to employ people because they aren't circumcised?

edit on 3-2-2014 by grey580 because: (no reason given)

while healthcare is not a right, i will concede that it should still be something that is affordable to the public. Problem is, The Affordable Healthcare Act, in true Orwellian fashion, is the opposite of affordable for many (yes, the few middle class left after the last 20 years).

But contraception? The only right you have with that is the choice of how you wish to do it. From there, it is up to you to pay for it. How hard is it to use a condom, for Christ's sake. Calling it "adequate healthcare" is not very honest in the assessment.

reply to post by Aazadan

A couple years back we had a bust at one of our mexican restaurants here in town. The owner would find people with bad records that could never get a job anywhere. He would put them up in an apartment he owned (about 300 sqft for 12 people) and provide them with some basic food. He offered them no other payment, just basic shelter and meals. They accepted the offer. Does that make it fair? The government certainly didn't seem to think so, the guy is currently in jail for using slave labor.

I would gladly work for compensation that you are describing, and yes, I have worked for such compensation until I was able to find something better.

You do not always have to receive money as payment. There is value in other things as well. But when you are receiving money, it is your responsibility to buy your own goods, including healthcare.

If both parties agree to it, so what?

People have to accept jobs, very often especially for people working these types of no skill jobs there is no bargaining or agreement over compensation there is "I will give you enough to pay rent". And the person must accept it. That is the reality. If minimum wage laws didn't exist, they would be offering even less.

So? We have to force them to give unskilled workers better wages? They are unskilled.

The existence of minimum wage laws, and them being found constitutional means health coverage can also be mandated as part of that minimum compensation.

There should be no minimum wage laws, and how does the existence of a minimum wage law also mandate that health coverage as part of the minimum compensation? Why stop there?

If everyone has to have full coverage, then everyone has to have full coverage. It's not any different from mandating that people have to be paid $3, $5, $7, or $15 per hour and falls under the realm of compensation.

As I said, minimum wage laws should not exist.

reply to post by NavyDoc

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

They are using their religion as the basis of denying to pay for someones birth control. it's against their religious beliefs.
However what if someone doesn't share that belief? What if someone needs the oral contraceptive to help regulate Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? Why would their refusal to pay for medicine in that case apply?

How about a scenario where hobby lobby doesn't want to pay for aids medication for someone because their gay?

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.

I've said before I'm on the fence about supplying oral contraceptives and or abortion pills. However there are very valid reasons for women to get them.

Polycystic ovary syndrome or in rape cases.

In any case I'm done here. SCotUS will determine the legality of this case.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

while healthcare is not a right, i will concede that it should still be something that is affordable to the public. Problem is, The Affordable Healthcare Act, in true Orwellian fashion, is the opposite of affordable for many (yes, the few middle class left after the last 20 years).

But contraception? The only right you have with that is the choice of how you wish to do it. From there, it is up to you to pay for it. How hard is it to use a condom, for Christ's sake. Calling it "adequate healthcare" is not very honest in the assessment.

I agree the aca in it's current form is caca.

I'm on the fence about paying for someones contraception.

however like I said in other posts there are very valid reasons to use the pill that have nothing to do with contraception. pcos for one.

and in cases of rape for abortion pills.

reply to post by grey580


the rape/abortion pill thing is a choice born of morality. And a fair mix of lack of empathy. But someone willing to shut down a business over ACA is someone who would believe that even in the case of rape, that child has a right to life.

for my expediency, I typically don't share my own views on abortion. So ill leave it at that.

reply to post by grey580


well grey you'd almost have a point except nowhere is there a RIGHT to a health plan that covers contraception and morning after pills/abortions in the constitution.

Now if the owner of hobby lobby said if you take birth control or are found to have taken one of these pills we'll fire you.... Oh wait no that'd still be legal since you can be fired for being a smoker why can't you be fired for taking a morning after pill?

The reality is they pay WELL above the prevailing wage for the type of jobs they hire most for which leaves their employees in a better position than most people in similar jobs WITH an insurance plan that covers these things to pay for them and still be able to afford to have the necessities in life!

Hobby Lobby isn't doing anything wrong here, and there is no way for you to twist this around in a way that doesn't make your pet causes look just as ignorant if not way MORE ignorant than what the CEO of Hobby Lobby said in that interview!

The truth is in a free society people are allowed to make decisions you don't agree with or understand, especially when the decisions affect something they retain sole ownership and control over... like say a privately owned business no matter how large or small!

Meanwhile the other side of the fence is waging active war against their opponents for having the AUDACITY to disagree with them! Already they are using armed police incursions, highly specious anonymous tips, and et cetera to stomp on the freedoms of anyone who doesn't choose to exercise said freedoms in a manner they approve of! Not only that but the same side is advocating everything from internment to mandatory mental health intervention for anyone who DARES to disagree with them! (TBF if they thought they could get away with it it'd be even more blatant than it is as evidenced by various YT posters showing people in heavily liberal areas signing petitions that they believe are real to do everything up to and including killing and imprisoning all gun owners)

And all this guy is saying is I value my beliefs more than I value continuing to operate MY business.... I fail to see how that's worse.

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.

Wrongo bucko!!

First off...the Supreme Court ruled that corporations and unions were people and had the same rights. Look that one up.

Secondly, before I hit the sack (cause I am a producer whose pockets are being picked) the implications of the Supremes decision is that a company is entitled to the same rights and privileges as an individual. I smoke my pipe (after stuffing it with the arguments above) and prepare for sleep. Damn, this smoke tastes like crap!!

lol

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.

In the first example: Rendering unto Caesar actually means, you should pay your taxes...not the reverse. Just an FYI

bbracken677

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.

In the first example: Rendering unto Caesar actually means, you should pay your taxes...not the reverse. Just an FYI

Not if I claim that I and my heart and my soul and my mind and my corns and everything I own belong to Jesus ... "and render unto God the things that are God's" ... ?

Just FYI.

Gryphon66

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.

Actualllllllyyy....The fact that there is an owner pretty much eliminates the corporation aspect. A corporation is publicly owned whereas Hobby L is privately owned, by an individual or partners.

Hobby has no issues with the providing health insurance, they do have a problem with the contraception part.

Hell...I have an issue with having to buy insurance for myself and my wife (we are both in our late 50's...err...I am 59, she is 29 (just in case she reads this) and having coverage in case she gets pregnant. In her case, absolutely impossible. The plumbing is gone. There are several other coverages being forced on us that we would not choose in a free market (LOL).

Actually...the issue I have is the govt telling me what I have to buy and placing on kinds of limitations on my coverage that shouldnt be there (wtf? I cant choose my own doctor? I thought this was the US of A ) along with extra crap that I dont need. Shear stupid-effing-idity.

They have passed this stupid law that no one read before voting on it, they have screwed up people who USED to be covered by their employers and the number of people who are now part-time instead of full-time because of obummercare is legion.

According to the Congressional Budget Oversight (is that right? I think I got one wrong) Obummercare is going to increase our public debt by 1 trillion dollars, is going to cost Americans 2.3 million jobs.

We were lied to. We were taken to the cleaners.... wwwwwwweeeeeeee weeeerrrrrrreeeee llllliiiiiieeeeeeddddd to!!

And there are still people who think this is a good thing. Really? Why is that?

I think it would have been cheaper and better if they had just left sheet alone bought coverage for those who couldnt afford it themselves.


Butttttt nnnnnooooo!

LewsTherinThelamon
You do not always have to receive money as payment. There is value in other things as well. But when you are receiving money, it is your responsibility to buy your own goods, including healthcare.

If both parties agree to it, so what?

Agreement under duress isn't agreement at all. When one party has no bargaining power and no meaningful alternatives they are under duress.

Besides that, whether or not you agree with minimum wage laws, they are the law of the land. That means the government does have the authority to legislate employee compensation. Think of full coverage health insurance as another part of minimum wage.

Gryphon66

bbracken677

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.

In the first example: Rendering unto Caesar actually means, you should pay your taxes...not the reverse. Just an FYI

Not if I claim that I and my heart and my soul and my mind and my corns and everything I own belong to Jesus ... "and render unto God the things that are God's" ... ?

Just FYI.

lol dude...seriously that made absolutely no sense.

Jesus was the one who told his followers: Render unto Caesar........
And render unto god that which is god's is referring to the spiritual sense...not material. Hence, using that argument to justify NOT paying taxes is totally fallacious.

So your rationale is just really effed up

I am sure you can find a better example than that one. That is effed up on so many levels. Not even a Senator or a President could sell that logic to anyone. The whole backstory part...the fact it is a Jesus quote...and what it means in a verbatim sense just makes the whole argument goofy. I hope that was an injection of humor, in which case I have to totally take back all I said and give you a star instead

Now...wheres my pillow? lol

bbracken677

Gryphon66

bbracken677

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.

In the first example: Rendering unto Caesar actually means, you should pay your taxes...not the reverse. Just an FYI

Not if I claim that I and my heart and my soul and my mind and my corns and everything I own belong to Jesus ... "and render unto God the things that are God's" ... ?

Just FYI.

lol dude...seriously that made absolutely no sense.

Jesus was the one who told his followers: Render unto Caesar........
And render unto god that which is god's is referring to the spiritual sense...not material. Hence, using that argument to justify NOT paying taxes is totally fallacious.

So your rationale is just really effed up

I am sure you can find a better example than that one. That is effed up on so many levels. Not even a Senator or a President could sell that logic to anyone. The whole backstory part...the fact it is a Jesus quote...and what it means in a verbatim sense just makes the whole argument goofy. I hope that was an injection of humor, in which case I have to totally take back all I said and give you a star instead

Now...wheres my pillow? lol

Ah, but you see ... you are offering your interpretation of what the text means. I am also offering an interpretation of what the text means to me in my First Amendment protected religious beliefs. It doesn't matter whether my interpretation of the verse is nonsensical (and it is) but that I have a RIGHT to believe as I wish and to INTERPRET my faith to mean whatever I want it to. That is the argument that's put forth here on behalf of Mr. Green. Some imagined sacrosanct belief that as long as one slaps the "my religion" tag on fecal matter, it becomes holy.

ADDED IN EDIT: At least I'm quoting a Bible verse to promote my belief. The Bible just doesn't address health insurance or birth control, unless of course you count Onan's method. Mr. Green (and his supporters here) are just gesturing vaguely to "ma faith" and expecting that to overcome reason and legal precedent and the laws of the land.

I trust SCOTUS will make that crystal clear in their decision.

Speaking of ...

By the by, Citizens United didn't magically bestow personhood on Corporations and Unions.

SCOTUS Blog Holding: Citizens United v. Federal Elections C'misson

Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.

Look it up, indeed.

reply to post by Aazadan

Agreement under duress isn't agreement at all. When one party has no bargaining power and no meaningful alternatives they are under duress.

THAT is absolutely true, and something that we can agree on.