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: 20
48
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 10:45 PM
link   

buster2010

Hoosierdaddy71
This is also a man that closes his stores on Sunday so that the employees can go to church with their families. Good for him for sticking to his beliefs.


Don't you mean lack of beliefs? His religion tells him he is not allowed to use contraceptives no where in the bible does it say he is not allowed to pay for someone else's contraceptives.


So you are saying I should have to pay for someone else to have an abortion or condoms so they can take no responsibility whatsoever. Why don't you just openly take my wallet out of my pocket, it amounts to the same thing.




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   

bigfatfurrytexan
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.


Here's an idea, why don't all the people who support a woman's right to choose only because of the rape issue, get together and pay for the morning after pills given to rape victims. At about 100k rapes a year and 12 bucks a pill, that comes out to $1.2M divided by about 100M people for a total cost of $1.20 per person per year. Factor in the roughly 50% of those victims who will refuse the pill and we're down to a measly 60¢.

Then let's decide from there whether or not abortion pills for convenience should be covered under employer provided insurance plans.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Bone75 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 12:12 AM
link   
A lesson to be learned and a damn shame.These people don't deserve to lose their business and their employees don't deserve to lose their jobs.This is a disgrace.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 03:41 AM
link   

NavyDoc

No, I'm getting the argument and it is without merit. Refusing to pay for a certain service is not withholding, refusing, or preventing anyone from getting any sort of care. You European socialists crack me up in that you think that if someone else is not paying for you to have something, then you are being deprived.



I think you've got socialism wrong mate - Everybody pays in and those who have need take out. You in turn also have the right to take out if you are in need. Therefore no one is paying for everyone - Silly capitalist's with your small feeble minds.



The government has everything to do with this! Are you not paying attention? The ACA is a federal government mandate that forces various things into every insurance policy. The government is the cause of this entire debate because, absent government interference in health insurance policies, the employer would not be mandated to provide the coverage.


Sometimes employer's need a kick up the arse.

I find it absurd that any employer would try and leave something like contraception out of their medical package.

I'll bet though that this company doesn't close ALL of its stores. They're all talk, just trying to boost their sales.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 06:38 AM
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.



This right here. I'm more than sure there will be another handful of "Christian" hobby stores to take their place



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:05 AM
link   
They are still not closing the stores? Right?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


So if you have a restaurant.
And you want to substitute cat and call it chicken that's ok right?

Since a business owner can do whatever he wants?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:34 AM
link   

SearchLightsInc

NavyDoc

No, I'm getting the argument and it is without merit. Refusing to pay for a certain service is not withholding, refusing, or preventing anyone from getting any sort of care. You European socialists crack me up in that you think that if someone else is not paying for you to have something, then you are being deprived.



I think you've got socialism wrong mate - Everybody pays in and those who have need take out. You in turn also have the right to take out if you are in need. Therefore no one is paying for everyone - Silly capitalist's with your small feeble minds.



The government has everything to do with this! Are you not paying attention? The ACA is a federal government mandate that forces various things into every insurance policy. The government is the cause of this entire debate because, absent government interference in health insurance policies, the employer would not be mandated to provide the coverage.


Sometimes employer's need a kick up the arse.

I find it absurd that any employer would try and leave something like contraception out of their medical package.

I'll bet though that this company doesn't close ALL of its stores. They're all talk, just trying to boost their sales.


That's not true. Not "everybody pays in" a lot pay none, many pay much more than others. Just 'cause you like someone else footing your bill does not make in a good idea.

You asked what the Government had to do with this, so obviously you were not paying attention. Why should an employer get a kick in the ass? Just because he dare to give someone a (shudder) job? I'm assuming you love government control of your life and work as long as you think you are getting something for nothing, amirite?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:35 AM
link   

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


So if you have a restaurant.
And you want to substitute cat and call it chicken that's ok right?

Since a business owner can do whatever he wants?


If someone offers a service but gives a different service, that is known as fraud. The analogy is not even comparable. If an owner cooks up cat and says that it's cat and customers can make the decision themselves, that is a different story.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:38 AM
link   

grey580
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.


If one does not like the compensation offered, they are free not to take a job with him. If enough employees don't like this, they will not have enough employees and will either have to change their policy or go under.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 07:43 AM
link   

grey580
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.


Obviously there are other valid medical reasons for OCP, however, other valid reasons to use them still does not obligate another person to pay for them. I don't share HL's stance on OCP, but I support his right to make this decision for his company just as I would support your right to buy OCP for your employees or extend benefits to your employees that are same sex couples--free society and all that.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:17 AM
link   

NavyDoc

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


So if you have a restaurant.
And you want to substitute cat and call it chicken that's ok right?

Since a business owner can do whatever he wants?


If someone offers a service but gives a different service, that is known as fraud. The analogy is not even comparable. If an owner cooks up cat and says that it's cat and customers can make the decision themselves, that is a different story.


In a sense, it is comparable. Consider the lies we were told about Obummercare before it began. We were offered a service and were given something very different. We cannot keep our previous plans, we cannot keep our personal physician.

The difference is, it is our own govt committing the fraud.
LOL

Oh...I forgot. It is also not affordable nor is it cheaper. LOL

So much for the "Affordable Health Care". What I dont get is if it is such a great thing, where are all those young liberals when it is time to sign up? Apparently refusing to do so by the millions.

So much for liberalism. It's great as long as it comes out of someone else's pocket. LOL


edit on 5-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: further clarification regarding liberalism



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:20 AM
link   
One person's crazy is another person's sane indeed.

Wouldn't the fact that HL (all employers) are required to provide birth control to females and not males violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin (specifically employment/fringe benefits)?

Religion is crazy, however there are crazier ways to attack the law. Including other laws.

++I understand fully that birth control has several uses. So do condoms. So does Viagra for that matter. The addition of Viagra into this argument is simply deflection at best. The discussion is should an employer be required to provide funding for medications to terminate possible pregnancies. Have they refused to provide birth control like the "fan boys/girls" here are shouting or are they still simply refusing the abortive medications (same as always)++



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:27 AM
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?


I'm not insinuating. It's the law. You open a business then you must abide by city, county, state and federal law. I dare you to open a business and not follow any laws that apply to you. See how long you last.

The problem with cigarette smoke is that not only does it kill the people that smoke cigarettes. It kills on the average of 50K people a year that inhale second hand smoke. Personally I hated coming home from a club and smelling like an ash tray. So afaic it's a good move.

Now there are definite differences between a business that's open to the public and a private club that requires a membership. Not all rules apply.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:35 AM
link   

bbracken677

NavyDoc

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


So if you have a restaurant.
And you want to substitute cat and call it chicken that's ok right?

Since a business owner can do whatever he wants?


If someone offers a service but gives a different service, that is known as fraud. The analogy is not even comparable. If an owner cooks up cat and says that it's cat and customers can make the decision themselves, that is a different story.


In a sense, it is comparable. Consider the lies we were told about Obummercare before it began. We were offered a service and were given something very different. We cannot keep our previous plans, we cannot keep our personal physician.

The difference is, it is our own govt committing the fraud.
LOL

Oh...I forgot. It is also not affordable nor is it cheaper. LOL

So much for the "Affordable Health Care". What I dont get is if it is such a great thing, where are all those young liberals when it is time to sign up? Apparently refusing to do so by the millions.

So much for liberalism. It's great as long as it comes out of someone else's pocket. LOL


edit on 5-2-2014 by bbracken677 because: further clarification regarding liberalism


Of course, the whole "ACA" was a fraud form the beginning. It was a fraud in that the federal government does not have the constitutional authority to do this, it was a fraud in "we have to pass the bill to see what's in it" deception, it was a fraud in buying enough votes to get it passed, it was a fraud in what was promised between what actually was delivered, it was a fraud in that it was intended to work at all--it's a means to make the system so onerous that people will be begging for nationalized healthcare as Cloward-Piven intended.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   

grey580

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?


I'm not insinuating. It's the law. You open a business then you must abide by city, county, state and federal law. I dare you to open a business and not follow any laws that apply to you. See how long you last.

The problem with cigarette smoke is that not only does it kill the people that smoke cigarettes. It kills on the average of 50K people a year that inhale second hand smoke. Personally I hated coming home from a club and smelling like an ash tray. So afaic it's a good move.

Now there are definite differences between a business that's open to the public and a private club that requires a membership. Not all rules apply.


So instead of simply not going to clubs that allowed smoking because you think its icky, you'd use the coercive force of government to force EVERYONE to comply with your thought process and sensitivities.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:37 AM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

Especially when it comes to expectations of privacy.

A police officer can not eavesdrop or attempt to enter your private dwelling without your consent.

In a public place or business everything is out in the open and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and a police officer can come into that business and look at whatever you are doing.

so a public business does not equal a private home.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:41 AM
link   

grey580
reply to post by bbracken677
 


I'm pretty sure I'm correct.

Especially when it comes to expectations of privacy.

A police officer can not eavesdrop or attempt to enter your private dwelling without your consent.

In a public place or business everything is out in the open and you have no reasonable expectation of privacy and a police officer can come into that business and look at whatever you are doing.

so a public business does not equal a private home.


A police officer can enter your home if you leave the door open.

A police officer can enter a business if you leave the door open, but he cannot go in if it is locked or you are closed without a warrant, just like in a private home.

If you invite a cop in your home, he can arrest someone for doing something he can observe but he can't search the house without a warrant. If you invite a cop into your business, he can arrest someone for doing something he can observe but he cannot search the business without a warrant.

There really isn't any difference except in businesses you let more people have access to certain areas at certain times.



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 08:59 AM
link   

NavyDoc

grey580

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?


I'm not insinuating. It's the law. You open a business then you must abide by city, county, state and federal law. I dare you to open a business and not follow any laws that apply to you. See how long you last.

The problem with cigarette smoke is that not only does it kill the people that smoke cigarettes. It kills on the average of 50K people a year that inhale second hand smoke. Personally I hated coming home from a club and smelling like an ash tray. So afaic it's a good move.

Now there are definite differences between a business that's open to the public and a private club that requires a membership. Not all rules apply.


So instead of simply not going to clubs that allowed smoking because you think its icky, you'd use the coercive force of government to force EVERYONE to comply with your thought process and sensitivities.


So what you're saying.

It's ok for people that work in clubs and don't smoke to work in an environment that might give them cancer?

And I don't get your thought process. We ban things or enforce restrictive laws all the time. Seat belt laws. No drunk driving laws. Now no texting while driving.

Why aren't you complaining about the coercive force of the government to force EVERYONE to comply with no drinking while driving laws?



posted on Feb, 5 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
 


So if you have a restaurant.
And you want to substitute cat and call it chicken that's ok right?

Since a business owner can do whatever he wants?


Of course he could.

And what do you think would happen if his customers found out? Obviously in your world-view consumers are too stupid to do much of anything useful. I don't hate my fellow human beings as much. I think that we are slightly more intelligent than that. I think people would get very good at researching what they were buying.



new topics

top topics



 
48
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join