If Hobby Lobby wins...

[Little-Acorn]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work?

Nobody's religion requires that they force others to say the Lord's prayer.

Or have a certain diet?

Nobody's religion requires that they force others to have a certain diet.

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways?

What makes you believe any owner can force his beliefs on his employees now?

Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods?

Sure, and some do. But not to others.

Could a vegan make their stores meat free?

Sure, and some store owners do. Been to Santa Barbara recently?

Even their employees lunches?

How?

Where does it stop?

Probably sometime after it starts... which it hasn't.

Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

OK, I get it. You're trying to pretend that Hobby Lobby is somehow forcing its employees to obey the CEO's religion or something, when all they're actually doing is objecting to the government forcing them into violating their own religion. You're so desperate to fool people into believing a lie about them, that you're pretending they're actually doing what you're lying about.

What a bitter, malevolent existence liberals have to live, now that their schemes are failing and people are no longer believing their lies.

 

[Spiderman]

Let's apply your argument to obamacare since the very administration that created it is PISSING all over their own law and arbitrarily changing it without congressional approval.

Seems fitting

I'm not in favor of obama care i just think citing religious reasons is stupid.

I would want proof that the business owners never ever serve anyone who sins, or never ever sin themselves before i would give their excuse any credence at all.

Well in that case since I think gay marriage is stupid it should not be allowed. Right?

Maybe you can explain to me how someone uses the excuse that the actions of another person makes it a sin on your part.

If you bake a cake for 2 gay people how are you committing a sin?

If you provide insurance and someone uses that insurance to buy birth control how are you committing a sin?

And if serving people who sin or employing people who sin is a sin in itself then prove to me that you never sin and you live your life 100% in accordance with whatever religious text you claim to be the word of god then maybe I'll believe your religious excuse to be valid.

I am not for anyone being forced to buy insurance but I still do not see how the actions third party constitute a personal sin

 

[Freewill]

Thanks unfortunately this point will be ignored. With a company you have no democratic process so what they say goes and if you dont like it then tough. You can not go there or work there. Understood. With the state you have some sort of direct recourse. Vote them out.

But that gives us, essentially, one choice - whatever the majority decides. And compels all of us to go along with it. What's wrong with allowing all of us, as individuals, to decide who we are willing to work with and under what conditions?

I agree to a point but What stops this from snowballing into other CEO's and their beliefs (whether factual or not) affecting all of their employees. Hobby Lobby wont be the first or last if nothing stops anyone from doing anything all in the name of "believing" and placing those requirements on everyone company wide.

Basically the argument is that CEO's have more say than employees because they have a business, basically...right?

The more broader question is, why do you think the government has the right or the ability to effect how someone runs their business? What YOU can do is not frequent a place of business to which you don't like the policy. But you saw where that got you with Chickfilay (sp). I stood in line for well over an hour and got nothing that I had ordered but I did it proudly. Liberals can boycott all the businesses they want. That will just make it easier for me to choose which company gets my business.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The only people trying to force their religion on others, are govt officials trying to force others to conform to the religion of liberalism.

It's a belief system that has frequently been disproven but still has fanatical acolytes devoted to spreading it far and wide, with no tolerance for any dissent or competition.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

It's only a matter of time before the government mandates dietary requirements.

The whole argument is stupid since most so called religious people use birth control, have sex outside of marriage and in general piss all over the ten commandments on a daily basis.

That's exactly why the mandate is dangerous. In our 237 year history, we were never forced to buy a product or pay a penalty for not buying a product under the us constitution....until obamacare.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The bottom line is that regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, it's not going to be the harbinger of doom that fear mongers on both sides would have you believe. The question for me remains which is more palatable, giving the government the authority to mandate, at an unprecedented level of intrusion, how a private business allocates it's resources or allowing private business to force employees (or potential employees) to conform to their religious beliefs. The truth is, I'm not crazy about either of them, but the latter is the only one of the two that might be held in check by market forces.

That would be meaningful, IF that were what is happening; but Hobby Lobby isn't demanding, nor even asking employees to conform to their beliefs. They are simply saying they will not PAY for those beliefs to be violated.

 

[ClosedCaption]

you have no idea what the case is about. Its not about an employer imposing his views on his employees--------its about the government imposing its views on the people.

Hobby Lobby has no objection to its insurance covering birth control, it objects only to paying for abortion inducing drugs, because the owners believe that abortion is murder.

Hobby Lobby will win this one.

CC knows exactly what the case is about. Exactly.

He is a lying scumbag that is here ONLY to incite flame wars and hurt the board.

The piece of shit needs to go away.

Permanently

It is more then that, in my opinion. It has to do with the liberals insatiable need to win at all costs.

Do they really care about if HL pays for abortion pills, I seriously doubt it they are readily available. But the liberal left can't stand someone not doing as they are told. They hold to their religion just a tightly as any religious person I have ever seen. They MUST make HL bow down to their demands, the liberal MUST win.

They're not abortion pills and thats the point

 

[manifold]

The bottom line is that regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, it's not going to be the harbinger of doom that fear mongers on both sides would have you believe. The question for me remains which is more palatable, giving the government the authority to mandate, at an unprecedented level of intrusion, how a private business allocates it's resources or allowing private business to force employees (or potential employees) to conform to their religious beliefs. The truth is, I'm not crazy about either of them, but the latter is the only one of the two that might be held in check by market forces.

That would be meaningful, IF that were what is happening; but Hobby Lobby isn't demanding, nor even asking employees to conform to their beliefs. They are simply saying they will not PAY for those beliefs to be violated.

Ok, if you want to split hairs then technically they're merely asking them to go work for someone else if they want insurance that covers contraception.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It should stop now!! what next a Jehovah witness who owns a business refusing to provide medical insurance for their employees that contains blood transfusions .

its time that we stop catering to these magical thinking lunatics who want to force their delusions on their employees

Yes, you Obamunists are dedicated to ending civil rights, once and for all!

I'm curious, when you Obamunists move to the next battle, and pass laws requiring employers to provide meals to employees, will Muslim employers be forced to provide pork?

 

[candycorn]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

All of that is true too but more to the point of the religious leanings; what if you get divorced and the owner decides that it is anti-Christian to get divorced? If you exercise your right to terminate a pregnancy...is that grounds for dismissal? If you have side-effects from the procedure, can they argue they shouldn't have to pay your medical bills through insurance or sick time?

It's why they'll lose. No way the three female justices opens this door in my view.

 

[Meister]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

What's stopping the employee from getting another job?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I'm not in favor of obama care i just think citing religious reasons is stupid.

I would want proof that the business owners never ever serve anyone who sins, or never ever sin themselves before i would give their excuse any credence at all.

Well in that case since I think gay marriage is stupid it should not be allowed. Right?

Maybe you can explain to me how someone uses the excuse that the actions of another person makes it a sin on your part.

If you bake a cake for 2 gay people how are you committing a sin?

If you provide insurance and someone uses that insurance to buy birth control how are you committing a sin?

And if serving people who sin or employing people who sin is a sin in itself then prove to me that you never sin and you live your life 100% in accordance with whatever religious text you claim to be the word of god then maybe I'll believe your religious excuse to be valid.

I am not for anyone being forced to buy insurance but I still do not see how the actions third party constitute a personal sin

Because they would be an actice part of the action through the FORCE of the government.

It's like saying I gave a gun to a known murderer but I'm not responsible for what he does.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

New York is already trying to control your diet - like restricting the selling of large sodas.

 

[edthecynic]

Since the purpose of incorporation was to separate the individual from the corporation so that the assets of the individual cannot be attached to pay for the debts of the corporation, if Hobby Lobby wins and reunites the individual to the corporation then the individual's assets might now be attached to cover the debts of the corporation.

Obviously the individuals want it both ways, they want to be separate from their corporations and yet still be attached. They probably figure what's the harm in trying to have it both ways, but if they win a debt collector might figure the same thing, what's the harm in now going after the assets of the individuals!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ok, if you want to split hairs then technically they're merely asking them to go work for someone else if they want insurance that covers contraception.

Utterly false.

Hobby Lobby insurance covers contraception, including the pill and Norplant.

They simply have declined to pay for abortions and the use of abortificants.

 

[Freewill]

CC knows exactly what the case is about. Exactly.

He is a lying scumbag that is here ONLY to incite flame wars and hurt the board.

The piece of shit needs to go away.

Permanently

It is more then that, in my opinion. It has to do with the liberals insatiable need to win at all costs.

Do they really care about if HL pays for abortion pills, I seriously doubt it they are readily available. But the liberal left can't stand someone not doing as they are told. They hold to their religion just a tightly as any religious person I have ever seen. They MUST make HL bow down to their demands, the liberal MUST win.

They're not abortion pills and thats the point

You are mistaken: Kyle Duncan, general counsel for the Becket Fund, who is defending Hobby Lobby in the HHS lawsuit, [said] that although he does not know exactly what transpired at the company's headquarters, he has read the petition.

"The petition is misleading. It makes it seem as if Hobby Lobby is seeking to exclude birth control from its health plan all together. That's just not true. The Green family and Hobby Lobby do not have any religious objection to birth control per se. Their plans have covered preventive contraceptives and will continue to do so," Duncan said.

"What Hobby Lobby objects to and the reason they sued is because the HHS mandate forces Hobby Lobby to include a specific kind of drug," he explained.

The drugs are called Plan B and Levonelle, otherwise known as "the morning-after pill" and "the week-after pill."

"For many people, [the pills] are not even considered birth control because the way they operate is to prevent the implantation of an egg in the womb. For millions of Americans that take the traditional Christian view that life begins at conception, that amounts to an early abortion," Duncan said. "The petition totally misses that and instead says that 'Hobby Lobby is denying women birth control and therefore denying health care.' So, the premise of the petition is wrong."
Read more at snopes.com: Hobby Lobby Lawsuit Against Emergency Contraceptives Mandate

 

[Cecilie1200]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work? Or have a certain diet?

Could any other owner force his beliefs on his employees in other ways? Could the owner who doesnt believe in prescription meds opt out of it all together and argue for "natural healing" methods? Could a vegan make their stores meat free? Even their employees lunches?

Where does it stop? Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

No. A vegan grocery store IS meat free. Veganism isn't a religion, although it may act like one. A vegan store would NOT be required to buy ham sandwiches for their employees, not even if the store normally pays for employee lunches. There are 16 methods of birth control that HL agrees to cover. It will not cover medications that induce abortion, nor will it cover medications used to end life for euthanasia. Liberals want to refashion this controversy into one in which HL fires women who use birth control and prohibits the use of birth control by their employees. That's not it. If you want further explanation of why you are full of crap. Should an employer cover natural healing methods to the exclusion of prescription medications? Should an atheist employer be required to pay for "faith" healing and pay the healer of a Jehovah's Witness?

This reminds me of something I hear at work all day from customers, and it never fails to flabbergast me. Someone calls in and demands to know why the prescription they tried to fill at the local pharmacy is going to cost them $300. So I look up the claim, and I say, "Well, while that medication is covered, it's a brand name on the non-preferred list for your coverage, so it's more expensive. Also, you have a deductible on your plan, so you have to pay the full price of the prescriptions until the deductible is met." And then they yell and bluster and huff at the perfidy of the insurance company expecting them to pay for something, and finish up with, "So what you're telling me is that the insurance company has decided that I can't take this medication, even though my DOCTOR (like he's God, or something) prescribed it, and I need it."

The answer I give them, very politely, is, "No, I'm telling you that the insurance company isn't going to pay for it. You're still welcome to take the medication . . . out of your own pocket."

People don't seem to understand the difference any more between, "You can't have that" and "I won't buy you that."

 

[Erand7899]

Thanks unfortunately this point will be ignored. With a company you have no democratic process so what they say goes and if you dont like it then tough. You can not go there or work there. Understood. With the state you have some sort of direct recourse. Vote them out.

But that gives us, essentially, one choice - whatever the majority decides. And compels all of us to go along with it. What's wrong with allowing all of us, as individuals, to decide who we are willing to work with and under what conditions?

I agree to a point but What stops this from snowballing into other CEO's and their beliefs (whether factual or not) affecting all of their employees. Hobby Lobby wont be the first or last if nothing stops anyone from doing anything all in the name of "believing" and placing those requirements on everyone company wide.

Basically the argument is that CEO's have more say than employees because they have a business, basically...right?

Basically, the argument is that government should not be in the business of mandating that citizens, whether employer or employee, forsake their religious beliefs to further a policy that government deems to be more compelling than their religious beliefs.

Further, when government decides that people have a right to a personal service or procedure, then it is evil for employers not to want to pay for that service or procedure. The employer is now depriving employees of that service or procedure.

And yes, it is very common for the person who is writing the checks on payday, to have more say in how the business is run than the guy who sweeps the floor or cleans the toilet.

 

[manifold]

Ok, if you want to split hairs then technically they're merely asking them to go work for someone else if they want insurance that covers contraception.

Utterly false.

Hobby Lobby insurance covers contraception, including the pill and Norplant.

They simply have declined to pay for abortions and the use of abortificants.

How would they even know if one of their employees had an abortion?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Then whats stopping them from requiring everyone to say the lords prayer before work?

Nobody's religion requires that they force others to say the Lord's prayer.

Or have a certain diet?

Nobody's religion requires that they force others to have a certain diet.


What makes you believe any owner can force his beliefs on his employees now?


Sure, and some do. But not to others.


Sure, and some store owners do. Been to Santa Barbara recently?


How?

Where does it stop?

Probably sometime after it starts... which it hasn't.

Or a better question, WHAT makes it stop?

OK, I get it. You're trying to pretend that Hobby Lobby is somehow forcing its employees to obey the CEO's religion or something, when all they're actually doing is objecting to the government forcing them into violating their own religion. You're so desperate to fool people into believing a lie about them, that you're pretending they're actually doing what you're lying about.

What a bitter, malevolent existence liberals have to live, now that their schemes are failing and people are no longer believing their lies.

You keep saying "no one religion requires that" and the point is that religion changes all the time and people can say certain things violate their religion and dont have to have a reason why or how.