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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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?