Hobby Lobby May Close All 500+ Stores in 41 States

litterbaux
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

SearchLightsInc
Maybe they should start shutting their door's if that's how they want to be.

They do, every Sunday for religious beliefs.

I'm a 30 year old male, why should my company health insurance be mandated to provide me with gynecological visits and mammograms? The family that owns hobby lobby has religious beliefs forbidding them from participating in, providing access to, paying for, training others to engage in, or otherwise supporting abortion-causing drugs and devices. Why should they be mandated to go against the religion they believe in?

Because they are running a businesss and not a religious sect.
Good for them closing on a sunday, But they should provide contraception because
1) The USA government has made the decision that employer's MUST provide this in their healthcare benefits
2) They are trading within the USA and are subject to the law's of that land.
3) Because they are running a business and have no right to deny mandatory medical care to their employee's based on their own personal religious beliefs.

Let them go out of business if they're not mature enough to deal with this without crying.

Nobody at Hobby Lobby is stopping you from getting birth control or having an abortion,

They are refusing to provide medical services that the government has said they HAVE to provide - So YES, they are stopping employee's from having access.

they just want you to pay for it.

Because there religious beliefs are in bed with their business.

Why is it any of their business what you do outside of work?

Good question, so why are they making it their business?

If you are a female and want to be promiscuous, you have to face the consequences and pay for your own abortion.

Nah, as employer's they now have to pay for it, government say's so, better get that check book out eh?

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


They are not "inflicting" their religious beliefs on others.

They are not preventing their employees, as a condition of employment or otherwise, from taking contraceptives.

They are, on the other hand, clearly having their rights (as owners) to exercise their religious beliefs trampled on.

Who is having something inflicted on them? The employers, by being forced to pay for contraceptives?

As I stated earlier, several times. There is no right to free access to contraceptives.

BTW I am arguing concept here....my wife used contraceptives for 5 years until we felt we were ready to start our family. I think everyone should have access to them, just as we did. I do NOT however, hold it sacred, that free contraceptives are a right.

If they are, then damn it, so is pot. I want my freaking free pot now! I am ok with you paying for my pot....heck...make that heroin...regardless of what your beliefs are. Get it?

reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon


well... I'll just leave this here for you.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

www.eeoc.gov...

Bone75
[
This company is standing by it's principles and I hope they win.

They wont win.

And principles or not, they have no right to disregard the law just because of their religious beliefs.

grey580
reply to post by bbracken677

 

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.

So if the employer were a White Supremacist...
It's ok for him to discriminate against non whites?

ROFL...

You should take a college course in logic...seriously. Ridiculous argument.

I have rights, as do you, as guaranteed by the constitution. There is an amendment that applies to the above. There is no such constitutional protection afforded to free contraception. At this point I would use words such as obtuse, facile etc regarding your obviously erroneous and illogical attempt at drawing some kind of parallel.

Fail.

BTW...just out of curiosity....by your example above, are you implying that discriminating against whites is perfectly fine and acceptable?

ha

reply to post by SearchLightsInc

What's the point of providing healthcare at all if you're just going to pick and mix what employee's can have? You might as well just provide no healthcare if you're going to be a baby about it. As ive said, if employer's cant be impartial about it then dont provide it at all. By providing it with terms and conditions based purely on your religious beliefs then you are defeating the entire point of providing healthcare.

It's just a matter of force. People do not like being forced to do something, even if it's for a perceived noble cause. The use of force is wrong.

I live in the UK, im more than happy to pay for you're healthcare mate. Whatever you need, you'll get, because we dont F*ck about here with religious politics. You need contraception? No problem. Abortion? No problem. Methadone to treat your heroin addiction? We got you covered. We know that healthcare isnt a one plan treats all.

That is your culture. It comes out of your taxes. Personally, I would not be OK with it. The only way a government can do anything is through force. I am not religious, I oppose the implementation of religious laws for the same reason. I hate force, or being forced to do what someone else perceives as moral--whether it is or isn't.

I want the freedom to choose. Being made to do something sets my teeth on edge.

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

well... I'll just leave this here for you.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

www.eeoc.gov...

Obviously we have a civil rights act.

Christ. Businesses and individuals should have the right to choose, always and completely.

Business owners should be allowed to do what they want with their businesses, including not hiring person X for immoral reason Y. Or not serving person X for reason Y.

That's what it means to be an owner. You get to make the rules of the business. And if you fail because of your decisions? Then you get no "bail-out."

A failing business is natural selection at work in the economy.

bbracken677
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

They are not "inflicting" their religious beliefs on others.

They are trying to undermine USA law which will in turn inflict their religion upon its employee's.

They are not preventing their employees, as a condition of employment or otherwise, from taking contraceptives.

But they are illegally refusing to provide that medical care which is breaking the law of the USA. If you want to trade in the USA, you have to follow its laws. No special privileges because of religious beliefs.

They are, on the other hand, clearly having their rights (as owners) to exercise their religious beliefs trampled on.

They have no right to break the law.

Who is having something inflicted on them? The employers, by being forced to pay for contraceptives?

The employee's, clearly.

As I stated earlier, several times. There is no right to free access to contraceptives.

And this company has no right to refuse mandatory medical care.

BTW I am arguing concept here....my wife used contraceptives for 5 years until we felt we were ready to start our family. I think everyone should have access to them, just as we did. I do NOT however, hold it sacred, that free contraceptives are a right.

And im arguing the concept that it is now law for employer's to provide contraception on their healthcare plans. If you, as an employer cant handle that, stop trading in the USA.

If they are, then damn it, so is pot. I want my freaking free pot now! I am ok with you paying for my pot....heck...make that heroin...regardless of what your beliefs are. Get it?

Is it mandatory for employer's to provide pot as part of a healthcare package? No? Guess you're still buying your own then mate haha

SearchLightsInc

Bone75
[
This company is standing by it's principles and I hope they win.

They wont win.

And principles or not, they have no right to disregard the law just because of their religious beliefs.

Yes! Exactly what every totalitarian leader in the history of the world has said.

Law does not equal right.

Try reading our constitution. For a change. You know...that piece of paper our federal govt is wiping our butts with? You know...as they record all kinds of data from our private lives without due process? As they, symbolically, enter our homes and spy on us, without due process? As they subject us to searches and seizures without due process?

Yeah...cause it is the law. Fine... Learn something from Ben Franklin about liberty, please. [Expletive deleted]

reply to post by SearchLightsInc


Its the law, its the law....sheep!

Read the constitution and find out what is, or rather should be, the law of the land. Hint: NOT law passed by Congress.

bbracken677

Yes! Exactly what every totalitarian leader in the history of the world has said.

Law does not equal right.

Try reading our constitution. For a change. You know...that piece of paper our federal govt is wiping our butts with? You know...as they record all kinds of data from our private lives without due process? As they, symbolically, enter our homes and spy on us, without due process? As they subject us to searches and seizures without due process?

Yeah...cause it is the law. Fine... Learn something from Ben Franklin about liberty, please. [Expletive deleted]

The government's snooping on its citizens is very different to a business refusing to provide mandatory healthcare because of religious beliefs.

Hey, you know the moon isnt made out of cheese?


sorry, i thought we were just throwing random stuff into this debate.






Marmite. Love it or hate it.

bbracken677
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Its the law, its the law....sheep!

Read the constitution and find out what is, or rather should be, the law of the land. Hint: NOT law passed by Congress.

Bet if they outlawed abortion you'd be all over it.

The law only suit's you when you are wipe your ass with it haha

But that's the beauty of it.
I get customers that Hobby Lobby doesn't want because they're not open on Sunday.
Hobby Lobby gets customers who don't like the vibe of my store (kind of like if Halloweentown had an art store). Forget religion; all stores make it plain who they want as customers and who they want as employees.
No shirt no shoes no dogs no smoking we reserve the right to refuse service...Just by the decorations, dress code, and the music you are limiting who will shop in your store.

If you're not welcome in a place then you find a new place. It's the way it works.
My other big competition has an art section but the entire rest of the store is devoted to sports and fraternities. They are not doing as well as they could because they have put two inimical groups together. Artists exist for jocks to make fun of and jocks exist for artists to avoid.
This was their dumb choice and I would support it even if it were bad for my business. Which it is not.
I support the freedom of people to do stupid things, I guess is my point.

The freedom to call these shots is why I started my own store.
Broken Nose Art Supply if you want to google it.

My personal stance on it is this:
If I get blessed enough to have an employee one day...
And I can afford insurance for them...
I'll tell them this, "What you do at the doctor is your own damn business. Call me if you're going to be late"

That's what matters to me.
Hell, it's the whole reason insurance was ever tied to jobs in the first place. The employer wants you healthy so you can work more.

Is there a big outcry from the employees that this will effect? Not so much, because they know what they got themselves into when they took that job.

I worked at Chic-fil-A when I was quite a bit younger. They let you know during the interview that you will be held to a certain standard and they give you the option of a handshake and a see you later.
When I failed to live up to that standard they let me have the option of quitting.
I wasn't bitter or mad. They told me that smoking wasn't going to work for them BECAUSE they were a Christian company. I ignored that and kept smoking.
It taught me a lesson about principles and I went happily on my way.

This is not a clean post. Didn't get a chance to proof it but I don't want to type all this again. I stopped to sharpen a knife for a customer and now I am bleeding. Going to fix that first. Triage.

bbracken677

grey580
reply to post by bbracken677

 

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.

So if the employer were a White Supremacist...
It's ok for him to discriminate against non whites?

ROFL...

You should take a college course in logic...seriously. Ridiculous argument.

I have rights, as do you, as guaranteed by the constitution. There is an amendment that applies to the above. There is no such constitutional protection afforded to free contraception. At this point I would use words such as obtuse, facile etc regarding your obviously erroneous and illogical attempt at drawing some kind of parallel.

Fail.

BTW...just out of curiosity....by your example above, are you implying that discriminating against whites is perfectly fine and acceptable?

ha

You have rights.

Your rights do not give you the right to deny someone else their rights.

I have rights.

My rights do not give me the right to deny someone else their rights.

Now there may not be a right for free contraception. And I'm on the fence about having to buy anyone contraception myself. But what is clear is that Oral Contraceptives are used to help women lessen the pain of polycystic ovary syndrome. So the Oral Contraceptive in this case is used not as contraception but as a medicine.

So ask yourself this question. Does hobby lobby have the right to deny someone access to medicine? If a woman is a lesbian and will never use the oral contraception as a means of birth control ever. And just so you know. I know a women that's a lesbian that has to take the pill to control her pcos pain. So it's not a theoretical question.

as for your btw question. No. It's never ok to discriminate against anyone.

LewsTherinThelamon

grey580
reply to post by LewsTherinThelamon

 

well... I'll just leave this here for you.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

www.eeoc.gov...

Obviously we have a civil rights act.

Christ. Businesses and individuals should have the right to choose, always and completely.

Business owners should be allowed to do what they want with their businesses, including not hiring person X for immoral reason Y. Or not serving person X for reason Y.

That's what it means to be an owner. You get to make the rules of the business. And if you fail because of your decisions? Then you get no "bail-out."

A failing business is natural selection at work in the economy.

I agree that there are some very valid reason for not hiring someone.

But race isn't one of them.

bbracken677
reply to post by Gryphon66

 

Your argument would also apply to liberty. To freedom. To any concept that is idealized as a goal.

As I stated above, the world is made of shades of grey. To demand whites and blacks is facile, at best.

If the govt removes one of your rights, let's just say: the right to assemble or, say, the right of free speech. Has your liberty, your freedom been violated? And yet, those concepts, by your definition, do not exist simply due to the fact that true liberty, true freedom does not exist except as a concept, but when applied to Nations, they have never, in the purest form, existed in totale.

Your argument is, and shall remain, disingenuous. By your definition, the lack of purity in the existence of any concept or ideal, denies it's existence and bans it to fantasy land.

Fantasy (any concept or ideal) it may be, in it's purist form, but to strive towards the ideal is, and hopefully shall remain, part of the human condition.

Not at all. There are multiple real world examples of the ways in which liberty is better than tyranny and of how freedom is better than bondage. Real people in real situations that provide real evidence of concept.

Do you really need me to offer those real world examples to you?

A "world made of shades of grey" is a poetic turn of phrase that all too often at best weasels into mere semantics. When applied to specific actions at specific times involving specific people, the reality of a situation draws into much sharper focus for most of us. When applied to real world situations, "shades of grey" allow for holocausts, pogroms and genocides. Matters of life and death, of liberty and tyranny, of freedom and bondage are very real visceral concepts that are ABSOLUTE to the people involved.

It is a very "black and white" situation when you are faced with an oven over your ethnicity or a noose in a tree for the color of your skin, wouldn't you say?

Indeed, real world examples are available for genuine ideological concepts that actually have reality or bearing on human existence, but there is not one tribe, one travellers' caravan, one county, shire, city, demesne, parish, canton, realm, nation or empire that has had a thriving, dynamic economy that is totally free of all direction and regulation as the "free market" fantasy innately claims.

If there is, name one.

If you cannot, then join Lews in repeating the same argument devoid of all evidence, and you'll continue to provide ample real world examples of what "disingenuous" actually means.

SearchLightsInc

bbracken677
reply to post by SearchLightsInc

 

Its the law, its the law....sheep!

Read the constitution and find out what is, or rather should be, the law of the land. Hint: NOT law passed by Congress.

Bet if they outlawed abortion you'd be all over it.

The law only suit's you when you are wipe your ass with it haha

Actually, my thought was that since you think that free contraception is a right, you were all in it for the freebies?

Why else would you insist that was a right as guaranteed by the congress, as opposed to an individual's right to exercise freedom of religion as provided for by the constitution?

The Supreme Court has already ruled that corporations and unions are essentially people pretty much guarantees, by the law of the land, that Hobby Lobby's first amendment rights are being violated by a law passed by congress.

I have said repeatedly that abortion rights should be extended to fetuses aged up to 5 years old. That way, should the mother change her mind about wanting a child, she could still apply her rights and have the child aborted. After all, a 5 year old is not capable of supporting itself on it's own, right? Therefore, by some definitions, abortion is applicable.

The discussion is about rights (and, contrary to opinion there is no "right" to free contraceptives) so perhaps you should lay off the personal attacks.

If you have nothing left but personal attacks and cannot demonstrate how a person's rights are being violated when they work for Hobby Lobby, then you have lost resoundingly.

reply to post by Gryphon66


So...then you believe there are zero examples of how the free market concept is superior to it's direct opposite? REally?

Consider what you are saying...the direct opposite of the full concept of free market...

Look at the most heavily regulated markets in the world and tell me they are superior in ANY way to those who are the least regulated.

Really?

SearchLightsInc

NavyDoc

Sure, why not? If the potential of getting a blood transfusion is so bad for me, I'll got elsewhere for employment.

You're just not getting the arguement are you?
You're basically stating its okay for a company to withhold certain medical care based on their religious beliefs.

You wonder why your countries a mess haha, you american's crack me up with your ignorance.

Would you be for the government mandating your interpersonal relationships? If not, why are you for the government mandating the terms of relationships between others?

What's the government got to do with this? Stop deflecting the argument.

A company is throwing its rattle out of the pram because it doesnt want to provide contraception and abortion in its healthcare package, religious beliefs have no place in business - Maybe they should start shutting their door's if that's how they want to be.

edit on 4-2-2014 by SearchLightsInc because: (no reason given)

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.

reply to post by GrislyAddams


THANK YOU Grisly for a genuine, real world, example of the entrepreneurial spirit in action!