Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

reply to post by gentledissident


Everything I have looked for at hobby lobby have found on e-bay cheaper. If they close their doors it is no big loss as far as I am concerned. The owner should feel lucky anyone shops there in the first place it isn't like his store is a necessity in society.

windword
Women with heart disease or liver disease, cancer, etc., need to NOT GET PREGNANT to save their lives.

Birth control pills can be taken safely by most women, but is not recommended for women who are over the age of 35 and smoke. If you don't smoke, you can use hormonal contraceptives until menopause. In addition, you should not take hormonal contraceptives if you have had:

Blood clots in the arms, legs, or lungs

Serious heart or liver disease

Cancer of the breast or uterus

WebMD

Looks like you can't attribute those "saved lives" to birth control considering women with those conditions can't take them anyway.

reply to post by Bone75


How many forms of birth control can you name? Also, a doctor may determine that BC is safe for a woman as each persons is different.

reply to post by Grimpachi

Off the top of my head...
Condoms
Spermicide
Diaphragms
Pills
Mini pills
Shots
Patches
NuvaRings
Morning after
Week after
Abstinence

reply to post by Bone75


Heh heh. Realized you were out of bullets, eh? How many clicks before you realized that you needed to strawman, Scarecrow?

Interesting pivot though. Try to make me prove your argument for you. Not going to happen; know why?

Your position is inaccurate.

Watch this -- condoms. Poof goes your fantasies.

Birth control methods do not kill; they prevent pregnancy.

It doesn't even matter that fertilized eggs are not human beings.

Either prove your claims, or, here's a thought just say "This is my opinion."

No one here is required to do your work for you. You don't display any special or expert knowledge; there's no reason to "take your word for it." In fact, all your posts have displayed in this discussion is a stubborn willingness to endlessly repeat your opinion as fact.

Your opinions are your opinions. Your opinion is one vote.

Don't believe in birth control, don't use it. Don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Control your own life and let others control theirs.

reply to post by ketsuko


zwith OSHA they already cant.

Grimpachi
reply to post by gentledissident

 

Everything I have looked for at hobby lobby have found on e-bay cheaper. If they close their doors it is no big loss as far as I am concerned. The owner should feel lucky anyone shops there in the first place it isn't like his store is a necessity in society.

David Green and his family are billionaires. They have achieved this by buying the great majority of their products in China and selling out American jobs, China, you know, that nation that enforces abortions and birth control on its populace, all the while claiming he's somehow doing God's work.

He's a hypocrite. I hope that SCOTUS puts this religious genie back in the bottle for good and sends it to the bottom of the sea.

Any other decision will be very bad for American business in the long run, because you see, it's not just whether Jesus wants you to buy cheap statuary from David Green, the man is chipping away at the very basis of American business, the structure of corporations and the protections of ownership aka the "corporate veil." If the corporation is the people who own it, and the people who own it are the corporation, thus granting Constitutional rights to the corporation (which is the only logical way it can happen) that's a game-changer.

If a corporation can act as the community of its owners, then the actions of the corporation are the direct actions of its owners. Goodbye corporate protections; hello personal liabilities and tax rates.

American business knows this ... have you noticed they're carefully avoiding the issue like the plague that it is?

reply to post by buster2010


Your ignorant baiting post are very funny.

reply to post by Gryphon66

Let me try to break this down for you dude because you seem to either be having comprehension issues or you're deliberately side stepping my points.

When Windword made the claim that birth control saves lives, we weren't talking about condoms. She was referring to the drugs that we've been talking about for the entire thread.

When you asked me exactly how birth control kills, I really didn't think I needed to include all of the other methods when I formed my response. But now that I'm aware of your diversion tactics, I'll be sure to fill in all the blanks for you in our future interactions.

reply to post by Bone75


I don't have any comprehension issues. I just don't agree with you, and I'm being just as stubborn and persistent as you are in your posts in response to you. Usually, folks get tired of interacting when all that happens in the discussion is that you repeat your opinion adding nothing evidential to the conversation. You obviously don't like it when someone points out the illogic of your positions. Then you try to do some subtle personal attack or other fallacious reasoning, like you've done now twice in response to my post.

You made a impossibly generic and nonsensical statement "birth control kills." You expected that to be a deal closer in your previous discussion with Winword. It wasn't. When I kept lobbing it back at you, you actually tried to back it up and insist that you were correct by "moving the goal posts." When I didn't let you get away with that, you went to the personal attack. Typical syndrome of poor debate.

Here's why it's important. You're not just arguing against the ACA, or against the assertion that corporations have religious freedom, or even against "abortifacients" being required in modern health care insurance policies ... you're arguing against the very concept that a woman has a right to choose what happens to her body, one of your very common themes. THAT is a core and critical issue that cannot be ignored. You commonly act to move every discussion thread toward this issue. Your ideas are dangerous to personal liberty and freedom, and these are ideals that are extremely important to everyone and are under great assault at this current time.

So, yeah, keep what you've learned in mind in our future interactions. Or not. Just stop the fallacious attacks and accept that not everyone shares your opinion. Good day to you, friend.

reply to post by Bone75


Jesus obviously doesn't want this guy in business, so he's doing what he has to. If Jesus wanted him to continue as a business owner, he would've prevented all of this solely on his behalf. He didn't, so there you have it.

Being an Evangelical Christian is easy. If it happens, then Jesus made it happen. Jesus made Obamacare happen. As they say, the Lord works in mysterious ways.

NorEaster
reply to post by Bone75

 

Jesus obviously doesn't want this guy in business, so he's doing what he has to. If Jesus wanted him to continue as a business owner, he would've prevented all of this solely on his behalf. He didn't, so there you have it.

Being an Evangelical Christian is easy. If it happens, then Jesus made it happen. Jesus made Obamacare happen. As they say, the Lord works in mysterious ways.

You're killing me here.

I had this conversation with my youngest son the other day. About how religion ends up bad when you relinquish control to it, rather than understanding causation independantly of faith.

As a Christian I empathize with his position, but I realized my taxes go to things I don't agree with. ( military spending, imperialism & abortions) However, the bible says we must pay our taxes and by extension any fee's they levi on us.
Remember Jesus words when he held up the coin asking who's image was on it. I dislike it just as much as the first century Jews/Christians hated paying their taxes to the Romans who also spent it on things that were against there religion.

God does not hold us accountable for how our governments spends our taxes. It not even tacit support. No Christian has ever been able to control how their taxes are spent once they go into the general funds and get distributed from there.

reply to post by Bone75


That's why, some women who can't take daily pills or aren't suited for IUDs et al, need Plan B as an emergency contraception for those rare occasions of condoms breakage, diaphragm slippage, etc.

Grimpachi
reply to post by gentledissident

 

... it isn't like his store is a necessity in society.

I disagree but with a smile because I hear this a lot.

Creative people, with no way to output what is in their head, have a tendency to act in socially unacceptable ways.

Hitler was a good painter but was rejected from art school. His talent was forced in a different direction. There are other examples, his is just the most obvious one because of the extreme lengths he was allowed to go to.

In some towns there is nothing but a Hobby Lobby for these people to physically look at colors (not the same on a computer screen), Judge not just the size of a canvas but it's scale in relation to other things, interact with other creative people (this is an invisible service that these stores provide)... I could go on, but the simple version is that art stores serve as a release valve for brains.


Now, if they would just hire someone with some product knowledge...

reply to post by GrislyAddams


Are you saying the patrons of hobby lobby are just a ball of yarn or number 5 brush away from becoming psychopaths?

reply to post by Grimpachi


Or under all circumstances allow everyone into an art college.

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

What specifically is "quite incorrect" and why is it so? Why don't you make an actual argument to something and offer some evidence to counter my claim?

You're mixing apples and oranges and calling them pears, health insurance-wise, and I'm fairly certain you know it.

Classic catastrophic plans usually focused on a) medical costs over over a certain amount or b) costs due to duration of or type of illness. That was a different type of coverage from the standard plans available.

Health care plans generally include(d) regular doctor's office visits, pharmaceuticals and hospitalization.

You made a claim that health insurance was "a new thing." I demonstrated that it wasn't. Did you read any part of the information I provided besides what you could strain out to support whatever you're attempting to argue and then hypocritically charge me with what you're doing. Quoting disconnected material to generate screen scroll and make it look like you're making a cogent point?

Demonstrate how paying the costs of your own healthcare subsidizes the costs of others. Cite a section of the ACA.

I demonstrated that health insurance was initially for emergent and unusual circumstances which you denied. You were incorrect and I was correct, using the very own cites you posted. I'm sorry your leftist idealology interferes with the facts.

The entire ACA is based on subsidizing other people's care. If expanded coverage is mandated for all people, then those who don't need the expanded care or want the expanded care are subsidizing, without a choice, other people's healthcare. That's simple to understand. In addition, the subsidies and outright paying for other people's policies is subsidizing someone else's health care. Are you saying that there is no taxpayer funded healthcare in the ACA? Are you ignorant of the subject or being intentionally disingenuous?

reply to post by NavyDoc


To avoid thread drift, this is the last I'll address to you if you keep repeating the same flawed arguments.

I showed that the first company offering the first group health insurance dated to 1847 in Boston, Massachusetts. That puts the lie to your assertion that health insurance is a "new thing." Read what I posted for what it says instead of what you want it to say. I demonstrated that here were individual "health" plans date to the Civil War. Etc. etc.

You make general statements about ACA with no backup. Cite sections of the act or admit you're just churning the clabber of your favorite extremist websites. Your designation of "leftist" for me is telling, because I am repeatedly on record in this discussion that I think 1) ACA is an nightmare and 2) I am very pro-business.

But that doesn't matter to postings like yours ... your postings are not interested in the truth, but in your ideological rhetoric. I am not a "leftist" or a "rightest" I'm a REALIST. I am for facts and against lies; I am for honest debate and against forensic dirty pool. I am for being able to prove matter presented as FACT and for admitting that something is not a FACT but an OPINION.

The very concept of "group health insurance" as it has existed for over a century but especially as it has evolved in the last 25 years, can be interpreted speciously as "subsidizing" others' care but that's just not an accurate way of looking at it, and you know it. You pay into a plan, I pay into a plan, the insurance pays out of the plan and keeps the rest. It would be just as accurate to say that we're "subsidizing" the insurance companies.

ACA works the way insurance has always worked with the exception that folks are being strongly encouraged to find their own healthcare. If you're so worried about "subsidizing" others, I'm sure you were working tirelessly to get laws on the books to keep folks from going in for emergency indigent care thus spiking all healthcare costs for everyone, everywhere, right?

Why don't you drop the false accusations and read what others are saying before you assign your little labels, eh?

Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

To avoid thread drift, this is the last I'll address to you if you keep repeating the same flawed arguments.

I showed that the first company offering the first group health insurance dated to 1847 in Boston, Massachusetts. That puts the lie to your assertion that health insurance is a "new thing." Read what I posted for what it says instead of what you want it to say. I demonstrated that here were individual "health" plans date to the Civil War. Etc. etc.

You make general statements about ACA with no backup. Cite sections of the act or admit you're just churning the clabber of your favorite extremist websites. Your designation of "leftist" for me is telling, because I am repeatedly on record in this discussion that I think 1) ACA is an nightmare and 2) I am very pro-business.

But that doesn't matter to postings like yours ... your postings are not interested in the truth, but in your ideological rhetoric. I am not a "leftist" or a "rightest" I'm a REALIST. I am for facts and against lies; I am for honest debate and against forensic dirty pool. I am for being able to prove matter presented as FACT and for admitting that something is not a FACT but an OPINION.

The very concept of "group health insurance" as it has existed for over a century but especially as it has evolved in the last 25 years, can be interpreted speciously as "subsidizing" others' care but that's just not an accurate way of looking at it, and you know it. You pay into a plan, I pay into a plan, the insurance pays out of the plan and keeps the rest. It would be just as accurate to say that we're "subsidizing" the insurance companies.

ACA works the way insurance has always worked with the exception that folks are being strongly encouraged to find their own healthcare. If you're so worried about "subsidizing" others, I'm sure you were working tirelessly to get laws on the books to keep folks from going in for emergency indigent care thus spiking all healthcare costs for everyone, everywhere, right?

Why don't you drop the false accusations and read what others are saying before you assign your little labels, eh?

I have pointed out facts among those cites you cherry picked. It's not my fault if you are much less intellectually honest than you pretend to be. You said that health insurance always was for general care and cited some links that you obviously didn't read because those very own links you used begged to differ. I pointed that out and now you are backpedaling.

Meh, we'll drop it for "thread drift" but it's obvious the arrogance you have shown to several posters in this thread about them "not knowing the facts" is absolutely unfounded. You've shown both in your ignorance of the Constitution and healthcare. It's also apparent that you can dish it out but you can't take it.