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: 9
48
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


Thank you for sharing this information. Even though I am pro-choice myself, I firmly believe in Hobby Lobby's right, or any person or company's right, to have freedom of religious choice. Mass applause for Hobby Lobby for standing up for what they believe in, all the way, and refusing to bow down to something that goes against their conscience.




posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:04 AM
link   

Bone75
I don't see anything wrong with a company that says "I'm going to give you a full time job and pay you 80% above minimum wage. I'm going to provide you with health insurance, but our healthcare plan doesn't cover abortion inducing medication. That you will have to pay for yourself."

It seems everyone here would rather see this guy "free his workers from the 40 hour work week" and cut their hours to 29 a week so that he doesn't have to provide health insurance at all.

Or have him reduce his pay down to minimum wage to cover the fines and offer no healthcare.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:08 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


It doesn't matter what "HIS" beliefs are because this is about Hobby Lobby the Corporate "Person" not the owner "Person". The owner is an entity which can hold religious beliefs but the Corp. Hobby Lobby cannot. It's really just that simple and that is what the Supreme Court is going to be looking at. The fact that there IS a separation between Hobby Lobby and it's owners is the matter at hand. If they were the same entity then fine, but they aren't.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:12 AM
link   

CB328



No Christian should be forced to pay for someone's contraception


But you don't want to pay for their unwanted kids either that they can't afford to pay for. Either way you're going to pay, but it'll be a lot less to pay for birth control.


That’s mighty presumptuous on your part. I suppose my stance on abortion makes me a card carrying tea party member in your eyes right? You have no idea what I do for kids in my community, nor do I feel the need to win favor from you by bragging about it.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 


So you want him to do exactly what people on ATS hate others to do? Claim it's not me it's my company?

We have a person who is taking personal responsibility for the actions of his company and it's a terrible thing suddenly.

Next time a politician says I think it's wrong but I'll vote for it anyways I want you to applaud them.

Next time a company does something horrific, but technically legal, I want you to remember to not be mad at the execs in charge, they didn't do anything, it was all the corporation.

ETA: I am sure there are solutions available to him to "solve" the problem by screwing his exployees, but he has elected to try to do the right thing.
edit on 4-2-2014 by OccamsRazor04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:26 AM
link   
I do not like our government forcing companies or religious organizations to pay for things they believe should not be covered. However our government already requires minimum wages be paid and requires taxes to be paid, etc, etc. The Supreme court ruled Obamacare was constitutional basically calling it the right to tax people and business whether we agree or not. Consider it to be an unwanted tax you have to pay while this administration is in power. If the stores shut down and lay off or fire all their employees, who is hurting the workers more? Give back to Caesar what Caesar demands until he gets overthrown. After all we currently live in the dictatorship called the US, it's not like the 49% of people who did not vote for Obama have any say anymore. He wants to ignore everyone who disagrees and use the decree of the king to enforce everything. He has appointed enough judges to sway thing in his favor.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:36 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


But it is his "Company" and not him. The fact that Corporations usually use this separation to do horrible things to people and get away with it is a different matter. The fact remains that Corporations do no have morals!! Period. They never will. They aren't real people and therefor can have no real personally held beliefs.

Allowing the Owner of a corporation to meld his beliefs with a Corp. in a legal sense would be a disaster!! I mean can you imagine where such actions might lead us?? What other Religious beliefs might then be Legally allowed for Corporations to do???

I understand what you're saying though. The separation removes the People in charge from being responsible for Corporate Crimes which is BS. But this won't link the owners being responsible for Corporate Criminal actions any more than they are now. It just allows for Corporate Persons, which are not a real people, to hold rights like real people. That is already a problem that I would hate to see get even worse than it already is.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:38 AM
link   

mOjOm
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


It doesn't matter what "HIS" beliefs are because this is about Hobby Lobby the Corporate "Person" not the owner "Person". The owner is an entity which can hold religious beliefs but the Corp. Hobby Lobby cannot. It's really just that simple and that is what the Supreme Court is going to be looking at. The fact that there IS a separation between Hobby Lobby and it's owners is the matter at hand. If they were the same entity then fine, but they aren't.


I find it quite ironic that you referred to a corporation as a person in a thread that centers around the issue of abortion. Its a twisted world we live in I tell ya.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:41 AM
link   
reply to post by mOjOm
 


While in the end it may mean he has to give in, I respect him for taking responsibility for his corporate actions. I too think he will lose.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Bone75
 


Tell me about it. I cringe having to actually say "Corporate Personhood". The fact that there is such a thing in the first place is what causes so many problems. It's too bad we can't just remove that whole idea all together.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:00 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Well I believe you have misinterpreted the establishment clause.

One persons rights end where another's begin.






Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,


If the law was changed to accommodate his religion this would be violated.



or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..


Make your case as to how providing health coverage violates this. Be specific. How can he not exercise his religion? Remember his religion has no bearing on another persons beliefs. I looked for cases as they pertain to "the free exercise" and I can find none that pertain. If you know of any please post them.

The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from accommodating religion and granting a religious exemption, if granting exemption would impose substantial burdens on anyone who does not benefit from that exemption.


The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Within this amendment are two clauses: the Establishment Clause, which prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits Congress from making any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

The Free Exercise Clause essentially allows people to avoid following generally applicable laws if they are doing so for religious reasons. Such as contraception is a sin, and they don’t want to participate in it.

Now with the Establishment Clause

Allowing these companies an exemption would impose significant burdens on their female employees (as well as the wives and daughters of their male employees) and is, therefore, unconstitutional.


The Establishment Clause prohibits imposing those sorts of burdens on third parties—burdens which can include up-front costs of contraception that can be close to $1,000 per year. In a recent article from Washington Post.


The writer is a professor at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School.


The First Amendment’s establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice. To be sure, the U.S. government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices but only when doing so does not impose significant burdens on others. We accommodate, for example, those who object for religious reasons to sending their children to public school; no one is hurt if these families opt for a private school or home-schooling.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court consistently has condemned government accommodations that shift the cost of practicing a religion from those who believe it to others who don’t. For example, the court struck down a state law that gave employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because of the burden it imposed on others. If most employees were Christian and took Sunday off, the statute would have forced the remaining, non-Christian employees to work every Sunday. This, the court said, violated the establishment clause: “The First Amendment . . . gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests, others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities.”

If the court grants these businesses the religious exemption they seek, it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners’ anti-contraception religion. After all, but for the business’s religious objection, the cost of contraception would be fully covered by insurance.
Washington Post



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Well I believe you have misinterpreted the establishment clause.

One persons rights end where another's begin.

If you can show me where someone's religious freedom is infringed upon I will gladly listen. I did not misrepresent anything, no one's right is being infringed by him not paying for Plan B. They are still free to take it.






Make your case as to how providing health coverage violates this. Be specific. How can he not exercise his religion? Remember his religion has no bearing on another persons beliefs. I looked for cases as they pertain to "the free exercise" and I can find none that pertain. If you know of any please post them.

It's his being forced to offer abortion that violates this. I already stated he has no problem with health coverage, or even contraception in general, it's only ELECTIVE Plan B he doesn't want to pay for.


The Establishment Clause prohibits the government from accommodating religion and granting a religious exemption, if granting exemption would impose substantial burdens on anyone who does not benefit from that exemption.

Prove having to spend a few dollars for Plan B is a "substantial burden".


The First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Within this amendment are two clauses: the Establishment Clause, which prohibits Congress from making a law respecting an establishment of religion, and the Free Exercise Clause, which prohibits Congress from making any law that prohibits the free exercise of religion.

The Free Exercise Clause essentially allows people to avoid following generally applicable laws if they are doing so for religious reasons. Such as contraception is a sin, and they don’t want to participate in it.

Now with the Establishment Clause

Allowing these companies an exemption would impose significant burdens on their female employees (as well as the wives and daughters of their male employees) and is, therefore, unconstitutional.

Again, how does forcing them to spend $30 on plan B rise to a substantial burden. Sorry, you will have an impossible time arguing that.



The Establishment Clause prohibits imposing those sorts of burdens on third parties—burdens which can include up-front costs of contraception that can be close to $1,000 per year. In a recent article from Washington Post.


The writer is a professor at Brigham Young University’s J. Reuben Clark Law School.


The First Amendment’s establishment clause prevents the government from requiring people to bear the burden of religions to which they do not belong and whose teachings they do not practice. To be sure, the U.S. government should accommodate religious beliefs and practices but only when doing so does not impose significant burdens on others. We accommodate, for example, those who object for religious reasons to sending their children to public school; no one is hurt if these families opt for a private school or home-schooling.

On the other hand, the Supreme Court consistently has condemned government accommodations that shift the cost of practicing a religion from those who believe it to others who don’t. For example, the court struck down a state law that gave employees an absolute right not to work on their chosen Sabbath because of the burden it imposed on others. If most employees were Christian and took Sunday off, the statute would have forced the remaining, non-Christian employees to work every Sunday. This, the court said, violated the establishment clause: “The First Amendment . . . gives no one the right to insist that in pursuit of their own interests, others must conform their conduct to his own religious necessities.”

If the court grants these businesses the religious exemption they seek, it essentially would be directing the women who work for these businesses to bear the cost of the owners’ anti-contraception religion. After all, but for the business’s religious objection, the cost of contraception would be fully covered by insurance.
Washington Post

Again, $30 for Plan B is NOT a substantial burden.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:14 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I can't say one way or the other whether or not this guy really is doing this for his beliefs or not. Though it does seem like that is the case. He's very good to his employee's in many other ways and so far I haven't seen any indication of him using this for some other agenda. However, since I've thought that before and been fooled, I'm not so quick to judge. But even if his intentions are legit, the old saying, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind.

From what I've been reading and from various little clues here and there, what seems to be happening is at the very least, there is big money and big corp. legal teams joining up and representing these cases. While the owners may have good intentions, they have knowingly or unknowingly joined up with some corp. financed law makers who I seriously doubt really care about Morality in any way. IMO they are just using this as a way to free up their corp. masters by putting more legal rights into the hands of the corps. themselves.

There is always more to these things than what it first seems. You just have to look in the shadows and you'll get a glimpse as to what is Pushing these things into action.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:23 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Reread what I wrote.


Aside from that your assumption that it is $30 even if true does not matter. You also cannot claim how substantial it would be to the employee because to some it is quite substantial which makes it your opinion, and this is about law. It has also been reported nay I say confirmed that contraception is neutral if not less for insurance plans because they factor the cost of pregnancy vs contraception which is why they make it either less or neutral. Prove me wrong on that because I am sure in prior debates with you that information has been provided. Here is a link saying there is no added cost to premiums. So nothing you said applies so far.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:38 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


Reread what I wrote.


Aside from that your assumption that it is $30 even if true does not matter. You also cannot claim how substantial it would be to the employee because to some it is quite substantial which makes it your opinion, and this is about law.

Well that's just stupid. $30 is not a substantial burden for an ELECTIVE medication. It's not an assumption, that's the cost.


It has also been reported nay I say confirmed that contraception is neutral if not less for insurance plans because they factor the cost of pregnancy vs contraception which is why they make it either less or neutral. Prove me wrong on that because I am sure in prior debates with you that information has been provided. Here is a link saying there is no added cost to premiums. So nothing you said applies so far.

That is just further proof that this is about him doing what is right, and has nothing to do with money. I have already made this point.

You keep throwing around substantial burden, $30 is not it. End of story.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I can tell you have nothing to add anymore. As you were the one who brought up the $30 and now you say I am throwing it around. I would say with that you did misrepresent unlike when I said you misinterpreted and you must have miss read.

LOL it has taken some effort just to try and keep you from going off of on tangents. For anyone who goes back to read our exchange it is quite comical.

If you get around to addressing any of what I posted pertaining to the law I will get to it tomorrow because it seems this has run its course. I did say this is an emotional subject for many it is OK for emotion govern people but not countries.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:05 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I can tell you have nothing to add anymore. As you were the one who brought up the $30 and now you say I am throwing it around. I would say with that you did misrepresent unlike when I said you misinterpreted and you must have miss read.

No, you brought up substantial burden, I showed it only costs $30, thus is not a substantial burden.


LOL it has taken some effort just to try and keep you from going off of on tangents. For anyone who goes back to read our exchange it is quite comical.

Can you give examples of these thwarted tangents?


If you get around to addressing any of what I posted pertaining to the law I will get to it tomorrow because it seems this has run its course. I did say this is an emotional subject for many it is OK for emotion govern people but not countries.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

I have no emotional investment, I think you trying to twist everything to your advantage, such as $30 could be a substantial burden, prevents true discourse. What's the point if no matter what I say you will simply make something up to justify your position and ignore actual points being made?



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:32 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





No, you brought up substantial burden, I showed it only costs $30, thus is not a substantial burden.



This is my last post to you tonight on the subject.

One of the tangents you are going on ATM is the cost. I said the unsubstantiated amount you claim it would be is a matter of opinion as to whether it is a burden. You are not an authority as to how much is a burden to anyone. There are many types of birth control where cost varies as well as the cost of doctors visits for birth control and subsequent checkups. Not all women can use the same type of birth control nor should they have to.

In the end though your claim that the amount would not be a burden to women is your opinion unless you an provide evidence to the contrary. This issue is a matter of law not opinion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:37 AM
link   

Grimpachi
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 





No, you brought up substantial burden, I showed it only costs $30, thus is not a substantial burden.



This is my last post to you tonight on the subject.

One of the tangents you are going on ATM is the cost. I said the unsubstantiated amount you claim it would be is a matter of opinion as to whether it is a burden. You are not an authority as to how much is a burden to anyone. There are many types of birth control where cost varies as well as the cost of doctors visits for birth control and subsequent checkups. Not all women can use the same type of birth control nor should they have to.

In the end though your claim that the amount would not be a burden to women is your opinion unless you an provide evidence to the contrary. This issue is a matter of law not opinion.
edit on 4-2-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

The problem is that even after I have explained it to you multiple times you still keep going back to birth control. Birth control will not be affected. HL has no desire to not offer birth control. Is it clear now? Hobby Lobby has no problem with birth control and has no desire to stop providing it with their insurance.



posted on Feb, 4 2014 @ 03:39 AM
link   
The court will not side with him. If he's able to withhold one form of health care due to his personal beliefs, every CEO in the country can suddenly start picking and choosing what health care options of their employees they believe they should pay for. This will quickly result in no health care coverage, or token coverage at best which effectively destroys any concept of employer based health care.

That's not going to happen.




top topics



 
48
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join