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: 15share:
jimmyx
Insurance is compensation for labor just like a salary. Does Mr. Green also get to say how his employees spend their salary?
The correct question, since you have stated Health Insurance is compensation would be, does Mr. Green get to determine how much and by what means the employee is paid for work.
Maybe start thinking with your brain, instead of your heart.
jimmyx
NavyDoc
jimmyx
thesaneone
buster2010
When he is saying I won't pay for this because it's against my religion he IS forcing his religious views on other people by denying people that part of their medical insurance.
And he has every right to close shop if he does not agree with those that try to force their own views on HIS place of business.
tough crap...HIS business operates under OUR laws, not god's laws... he can sell the business if doesn't want to follow the law
Okay, let's operate under our laws. Where does the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, state that the federal government can mandate what a private employer provides as part of their employment contract?
well, here's a reason why, and I chose this person's opinion on it, because it goes right to the heart of the matter. this is written by a maryce ramsey from sooner high school.
Insurance is compensation for labor just like a salary.
Exactly and as any compensation package it should be negotiated between the employer and employee without governmental interference. If either party disagrees with the stipulations of the other, they are free to walk and that is freedom and that is what America is about .
Does Mr. Green also get to say how his employees spend their salary? Where does this end? If your employer is a Jehovah's Witness, can he stop you from getting a blood transfusion? If your employer is a Scientologist, can he stop you from seeking counseling or accessing anti-depressants? You may be OK with this because you share Mr. Green's take on Christianity but it doesn't stop with faiths, or even sects of faiths that you agree with. What if your employer doesn't believe in modern medicine at all? If we let one religious sect enforce their religious beliefs on his employees then they all get to. And none of us will have religious freedom anymore. To access health care we will be coerced into following our employer's take on religion. That isn't American.
edit on 4-2-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)
Not paying for something is not the same as preventing you from getting that something, so the comparison is invalid.
If your employer does not believe in medical coverage at all, then he will either have to increase your cash pay to be competitive with other employers or offer it as a benefit. This is how competition works.
So an employer "forcing" someone is wrong (although not paying for something is not the same as forcing) but the government forcing someone is alright?
reply to post by buster2010
Funny how CHristian abhorance for "abortion" issues doesnt extend to their Govt printing money, exporting inflation to 3rd world countries, raping other countries wealth through World pricing of Oil in $US, creating and fighting and killing in over 100 wars in the last century...funny thing about "Christains"
Funny how you don't hear these "Christians" complaining about that
Funny how CHristian abhorance for "abortion" issues doesnt extend to their Govt printing money, exporting inflation to 3rd world countries, raping other countries wealth through World pricing of Oil in $US, creating and fighting and killing in over 100 wars in the last century...funny thing about "Christains"
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
You're merely dancing around the question. You haven't answered it, and yes, you are claiming that I'm making an argument that I'm not making. (Strawman argument)
You posit something called "the free market."
This "free market" has certain characteristics that you are very clear about one of which is that it is a viable economic system.
Point to a "free market" that exists in this world at this time as an example of your claim.
If you can't, then admit that you're making claims based on untested ideology.
You're merely dancing around the question. You haven't answered it, and yes, you are claiming that I'm making an argument that I'm not making. (Strawman argument)
You posit something called "the free market."
This "free market" has certain characteristics that you are very clear about one of which is that it is a viable economic system.
Point to a "free market" that exists in this world at this time as an example of your claim.
If you can't, then admit that you're making claims based on untested ideology.
thesaneone
reply to post by Gryphon66
No you didn't I asked that you post a link with the exact point you are trying to make.
This post doesn't make any sense.
You replied to one of my comments that was an answer to the question posed by Navydoc: here I'll reference it for you:
Navydoc
Okay, let's operate under our laws. Where does the supreme law of the land, The Constitution, state that the federal government can mandate what a private employer provides as part of their employment contract?
My answer to Navydoc's question is found in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 as well as at the Fourteenth Amendment. Do you need me to link the texts of those for you? What are you asking for? Help me help you.
grey580
reply to post by Bone75
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.
editby]edit on 3-2-2014 by grey580 because: (no reason given)
This is not about me taking away your rights.
First: How is free contraception a right? the 66th Amendment? I must have missed that one.
It's about whether the govt has the right to FORCE an employer to provide a service that runs counter to the owners religious belief system.
Does the govt have the right to FORCE someone to use contraception? Does the govt have the right to FORCE a private entity to provide abortion to it's employees for free?
Our founding fathers would be organizing a revolution if they saw what is going on today. The constitution is being ignored and there is nothing protecting us from intrusion by the govt into our lives. They seem to believe they have the right to take whatever monies from us they choose. They seem to believe they have the right to intrude into our religious beliefs. They seem to believe they have been granted the right to strangle liberty, in public, right in front of us, daring a response.
No wonder they are pushing this sense of "entitlement" so many of our citizens have. Let the govt be responsible for us...then we shall not dare to buck the status quo. We shall not dare bite the hand that feeds us.
I am sick and tired of people believing they are entitled to CRAP for free. Our country has become a huge stinking pile of feces due to this sense of entitlement along with other, related things.
Wonder why there is very little excellent work ethic left these days? See "sense of entitlement".
By god, I want the govt to provide my food, shelter, and medical needs for free and, by god, I totally expect to not have to work for it.
BS
Gryphon66
reply to post by NavyDoc
LOL.
The Commerce Clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants the Federal government the right to regulate Commerce "among the several States."
Are your imaginary employer and employee within one of the States within the United States? Then, your question is answered.
The Fourteenth Amendment provides for due process before the law and equal protection of the law for all citizens.
Are your imaginary employer and employee citizens of the United States? Then your question is answered.
Claiming a "fail" is not an argument. State your case.
The case is simple.
LOL. How is mandating an employer due process and equal protection under the law? 14th Amendment does not even apply to employer mandates. Thus suggesting it was is wrong. The 14th Amendment is about the law of he states and the federal government, not interfering with exchange of goods and services between individuals. They are citizens, but the 14th Amendment is limited to having government treat people equally under the law. It does not support mandates on employment contracts at all.
The commerce clause is one of he most abused and miss interpreted clauses in the Constitution. How is an agreement of employment between two individuals "commerce between several states." The answer it isn't. The overreaching government and statists claim that any and all commerce effects interstate commerce and must therefore be regulated by the federal government as an excuse to increase governmental power over individuals, but the commerce clause neither state that nor was it intended to be it. The commerce clause was about regulations that made commerce easy between the states, such as standard weights and measures. It was not regulating with what people do in their businesses, homes, and private lives and it never was until recently.
reply to post by Gryphon66
I read it a few times and yet to find where it say's anything about the government forcing any business to provide BC or condoms.
I read it a few times and yet to find where it say's anything about the government forcing any business to provide BC or condoms.
reply to post by Bone75
"We provide your job, we own you"
They sound like a good company to work for but i have to disagree with you bonez, their employment of people does not give them the right to force their religious beliefs upon their employee's - If they want to shut their business because of this then i'll help board up the windows to their shop.
"We provide your job, we own you"
They sound like a good company to work for but i have to disagree with you bonez, their employment of people does not give them the right to force their religious beliefs upon their employee's - If they want to shut their business because of this then i'll help board up the windows to their shop.
Gryphon66
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
It is not a strawman. If a free market did not exist anywhere in the world at this current time, there could be a multitude of factors for why, other than the one factor that you are alluding to.
I used your logic to highlight why your inquiry is absurd. It is a loaded question that means:
If no free market exists in the world, then free markets are invalid.
If just one free market exists in the world, then free markets are valid.
Your entire question posits the validity of free markets with the existence of free markets. What about other factors that could be influencing the use or disuse of free markets other than it's validity? The concept does not have to exist in the real world to be valid.
Why?
Since when have free markets been untested? Western civilization flourished because of the free market. The United States used a free market, and when we did, we did not have the problems that we have now.
Our companies were still in the US. The US was still manufacturing goods. Inflation did not make the ridiculous climb that it has since the Federal Reserve was enacted in 1913. In every single way, our current market is the perfect example as to why regulation does not work. It has done nothing but consolidate the power of an entire nation into the hands of only a few.
When the US was a free market we were better off because of it.
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon
You're merely dancing around the question. You haven't answered it, and yes, you are claiming that I'm making an argument that I'm not making. (Strawman argument)
It is not a strawman. If a free market did not exist anywhere in the world at this current time, there could be a multitude of factors for why, other than the one factor that you are alluding to.
I used your logic to highlight why your inquiry is absurd. It is a loaded question that means:
If no free market exists in the world, then free markets are invalid.
If just one free market exists in the world, then free markets are valid.
Your entire question posits the validity of free markets with the existence of free markets. What about other factors that could be influencing the use or disuse of free markets other than it's validity? The concept does not have to exist in the real world to be valid.
Point to a "free market" that exists in this world at this time as an example of your claim.
Why?
If you can't, then admit that you're making claims based on untested ideology.
Since when have free markets been untested? Western civilization flourished because of the free market. The United States used a free market, and when we did, we did not have the problems that we have now.
Our companies were still in the US. The US was still manufacturing goods. Inflation did not make the ridiculous climb that it has since the Federal Reserve was enacted in 1913. In every single way, our current market is the perfect example as to why regulation does not work. It has done nothing but consolidate the power of an entire nation into the hands of only a few.
When the US was a free market we were better off because of it.
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
So in this economy you would rather people lose there jobs just because a company does not want to provide b/c?
want want want.
So in this economy you would rather people lose there jobs just because a company does not want to provide b/c?
want want want.
thesaneone
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
So in this economy you would rather people lose there jobs just because a company does not want to provide b/c?
want want want.
I would rather companies didnt try and enforce their religious beliefs on their employee's. If they want to throw a tantrum and threaten to close their whole business over this issue then that makes me think that maybe they shouldnt be doing business with the general public.
It's like you're employer saying "Here's your pay packet, dont spend it on drink and drugs because i disapprove"
There is a line between the employer and employee - These people obviously want to cross it.
Pretty sad that a business is willing to put that many people out of work and throw everything they've made away, over a silly little thing like
birth control.
Tsk tsk.
And they call this being 'brave'. More like a cop-out.
~Tenth
Tsk tsk.
And they call this being 'brave'. More like a cop-out.
~Tenth
thesaneone
reply to post by Gryphon66
I read it a few times and yet to find where it say's anything about the government forcing any business to provide BC or condoms.
Those specifics were not included in Navydoc's question and is not part of the implied "claim" of my response.
To make my response more plain: the power to regulate commerce is ceded to the Federal Government in the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 called not surprisingly the Commerce Clause, and the insurance that said power is meted in a fair and equitable way is provided at the Fourteenth Amendment within the concepts of due process and equal protection.
Further, as pointed out repeatedly, nothing in the ACA forces employers to provide condoms or birth control.
Finally, the OP question refers to the claim of Hobby Lobby's ownership that the question regards freedom of religion as enshrined in the First Amendment. Repeatedly it has been shown, both in the discussion and in the courts that is a flawed claim.
SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Bone75
"We provide your job, we own you"
They sound like a good company to work for but i have to disagree with you bonez, their employment of people does not give them the right to force their religious beliefs upon their employee's - If they want to shut their business because of this then i'll help board up the windows to their shop.
But that's not what they did. They simply don't want to cover something as part of their compensation package. The employee is perfectly free to buy their own birth control and won't be fired if they do.
SearchLightsInc
thesaneone
reply to post by SearchLightsInc
So in this economy you would rather people lose there jobs just because a company does not want to provide b/c?
want want want.
It's like you're employer saying "Here's your pay packet, dont spend it on drink and drugs because i disapprove"
NO, it's not. That's not what they did. What they did was more similar to "I won't pay for your beer or drugs, you'll have to spend your own money on that. "
NavyDoc
SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Bone75
"We provide your job, we own you"
They sound like a good company to work for but i have to disagree with you bonez, their employment of people does not give them the right to force their religious beliefs upon their employee's - If they want to shut their business because of this then i'll help board up the windows to their shop.
But that's not what they did. They simply don't want to cover something as part of their compensation package. The employee is perfectly free to buy their own birth control and won't be fired if they do.
Okay, so lets say an company run by very strict Jehovah's Witnesses and they dont want provide cover for blood transfusions, you're cool with that as well yeah?
edit on 4-2-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)
SearchLightsInc
NavyDoc
SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Bone75
"We provide your job, we own you"
They sound like a good company to work for but i have to disagree with you bonez, their employment of people does not give them the right to force their religious beliefs upon their employee's - If they want to shut their business because of this then i'll help board up the windows to their shop.
But that's not what they did. They simply don't want to cover something as part of their compensation package. The employee is perfectly free to buy their own birth control and won't be fired if they do.
Okay, so lets say an company run by very strict Amish doesnt want to provide cover for blood transfusions, you're cool with that as well yeah?
Personally, I am very cool with that. The employee has a salary to pay for nifty stuff like that. It's the entire reason we get paid.
LewsTherinThelamon
SearchLightsInc
NavyDoc
SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Bone75
"We provide your job, we own you"
They sound like a good company to work for but i have to disagree with you bonez, their employment of people does not give them the right to force their religious beliefs upon their employee's - If they want to shut their business because of this then i'll help board up the windows to their shop.
But that's not what they did. They simply don't want to cover something as part of their compensation package. The employee is perfectly free to buy their own birth control and won't be fired if they do.
Okay, so lets say an company run by very strict Amish doesnt want to provide cover for blood transfusions, you're cool with that as well yeah?
Personally, I am very cool with that. The employee has a salary to pay for nifty stuff like that. It's the entire reason we get paid.
"Nifty stuff" You do realise that blood transfusions are a necessity for some people? Not just something you choose to do for fun.
edit on
4-2-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)
SearchLightsInc
LewsTherinThelamon
SearchLightsInc
NavyDoc
SearchLightsInc
reply to post by Bone75
"We provide your job, we own you"
They sound like a good company to work for but i have to disagree with you bonez, their employment of people does not give them the right to force their religious beliefs upon their employee's - If they want to shut their business because of this then i'll help board up the windows to their shop.
But that's not what they did. They simply don't want to cover something as part of their compensation package. The employee is perfectly free to buy their own birth control and won't be fired if they do.
Okay, so lets say an company run by very strict Amish doesnt want to provide cover for blood transfusions, you're cool with that as well yeah?
Personally, I am very cool with that. The employee has a salary to pay for nifty stuff like that. It's the entire reason we get paid.
"Nifty stuff" You do realise that blood transfusions are a necessity for some people? Not just something you choose to do for fun.edit on 4-2-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)
You do realize you receive a salary/wage from your employer as compensation for a service that you provided to pay for it? Right? If you are paying for it with the money that you earned, then no one can stop you from purchasing the product. That is tyrannical.
But, you can't get a paycheck and make your employer pay for your living expenses as well. That is the problem. If you want to force your employer to give you such a privilege, then you deserve to live with whatever your employer decides is fair. A benefit is a privilege, not a right. You do not have the right to another person's labor.
Seriously. I need to pass a law to make you personally pay for my healthcare and see how you like it. For no reason at all other than I have a right to it. If one individual's money belongs to you to make decisions over, then I can make decisions over your money as well.