What if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims imposing Sharia law on workers?

[DigitalDrifter]

Amazing that someone could believe the Hobby Lobby decision is forcing religious beliefs onto employees.

Here's a clue what you as a worker with choices can do:

1. Don't work somewhere, where the employer offers an insurance plan not suitable to your standards.

2. Supplement your policy by purchasing an additional plan that fills the void you've imagined on the open market. Maybe Obamacare can even hold your hand.

3. Purchase your own birth control. What a concept.

4. Your body is 100% your responsibility. Not your employer, not Obama, not other taxpayers. You have control of how your body is treated, taken care of, and medically treated.

5. Use your brain, and stop expecting others to solve your personal problems and needs.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

What if Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims imposing Sharia law on workers?

Former Star Trek actor George Takei blasted Monday’s decision by the Supreme Court allowing the craft store Hobby Lobby to opt out of the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act.

In a post on the website for his new play, Allegiance, the openly gay Takei called Monday’s decision “a stunning setback for women’s reproductive rights.”

“The ruling elevates the rights of a FOR-PROFIT CORPORATION over those of its women employees and opens the door to all manner of claims that a company can refuse services based on its owner’s religion,” Takei wrote.

He referred to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s blistering 35-page dissent to the decision, saying, “Think about the ramifications: As Justice Ginsberg’s stinging dissent pointed out, companies run by Scientologists could refuse to cover antidepressants, and those run by Jews or Hindus could refuse to cover medications derived from pigs (such as many anesthetics, intravenous fluids, or medications coated in gelatin).”

“(O)ne wonders,” he said, “whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees.”

DOH!


Sulu corners the far-right tea brains with LOGIC!!

What if ?

Well, for one thing if it involved Islam and Muslims, suddenly you liberals would be okay with it.

 

[Seawytch]

Step One: Your employer gives you a paycheck.

Step Two: You buy your own health insurance the same way you buy your own life, auto, and home insurance.

Step Three: Profits!


Problem solved.


NEXT!

I said that and someone, I think, called me a commie...or insane. Makes perfect sense to me. How employers ever got tangled up in providing health insurance I don't know.

 

[Redfish]

Step One: Your employer gives you a paycheck.

Step Two: You buy your own health insurance the same way you buy your own life, auto, and home insurance.

Step Three: Profits!


Problem solved.


NEXT!

I said that and someone, I think, called me a commie...or insane. Makes perfect sense to me. How employers ever got tangled up in providing health insurance I don't know.

its called an employment benefit. Geez, you are dumb

The real issue, that no one wants to address, is whether health insurance should pay 100% of your medical bills, or should you bear some portion of it?

Does paying an insurance premium entitle you to "free" medical care?

 

[Kosh]

This is more proof that the far left Taliban does not even have clue other than talking points and propaganda.

 

[tinydancer]

Yeah, comparing apples to cinder blocks is a real gotcha.

How is this hypothetical different? They both involve a closely held corporation's religious views being reflected in their business practices. Or is there some sort of religious chauvinism going on on your part?

Hobby Lobby isn't saying you can't fuck your brains out all weekend long with anyone man/woman/transgender of legal age.

Go fuck anything and everything you want to. Just don't expect the company to pay for your choices in life.

I wish the left wing whackos would cut out the bullshit here.

 

[Redfish]

Yeah, comparing apples to cinder blocks is a real gotcha.

How is this hypothetical different? They both involve a closely held corporation's religious views being reflected in their business practices. Or is there some sort of religious chauvinism going on on your part?

Hobby Lobby isn't saying you can't fuck your brains out all weekend long with anyone man/woman/transgender of legal age.

Go fuck anything and everything you want to. Just don't expect the company to pay for your choices in life.

I wish the left wing whackos would cut out the bullshit here.

they won't because bullshit is all they have.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Yeah, comparing apples to cinder blocks is a real gotcha.

How is this hypothetical different? They both involve a closely held corporation's religious views being reflected in their business practices. Or is there some sort of religious chauvinism going on on your part?

Hobby Lobby isn't saying you can't fuck your brains out all weekend long with anyone man/woman/transgender of legal age.

Go fuck anything and everything you want to. Just don't expect the company to pay for your choices in life.

I wish the left wing whackos would cut out the bullshit here.

Why would a lesbian want an IUD?

 

[Redfish]

How is this hypothetical different? They both involve a closely held corporation's religious views being reflected in their business practices. Or is there some sort of religious chauvinism going on on your part?

Hobby Lobby isn't saying you can't fuck your brains out all weekend long with anyone man/woman/transgender of legal age.

Go fuck anything and everything you want to. Just don't expect the company to pay for your choices in life.

I wish the left wing whackos would cut out the bullshit here.

Why would a lesbian want an IUD?

why would two gay men want maternity coverage?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we can safely conclude that the conservative consensus is that using the 1st amendment's religious protections to trump federal law in a non-religious activity should only be a privilege extended to Christians?

lol, how predictable.

 

[Redfish]

So we can safely conclude that the conservative consensus is that using the 1st amendment's religious protections to trump federal law in a non-religious activity should only be a privilege extended to Christians?

lol, how predictable.

not one poster said or implied that------------as usual you are lying.

 

[KNB]

Grown human adults need to decide that religion should not be involved with health care because health care is based on science and religion is not.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Learn to read. It's a potential financial penalty to any woman who would have used the insurance she was entitled to, BY LAW.

Other women working at comparable businesses without an employer who objects to the LAW will not be penalized.

That effectively has allowed Hobby Lobby to impose their religious view on their employees,

which is not what the 1st amendment is designed to do.

In 1968, a businessman went to the Supreme Court claiming the right not to serve blacks on the grounds that it was against his religious belief that the races should be separate. It was a sincere religious belief.

He lost 8 to 0.

Now. Either that case, or the Hobby Lobby case, was decided wrongly. They can't both be right because they both make what amounts to the same claim for the same reasons.

So which one was right?

You don't see any worthwhile responses to the above because most Conservatives believe that the 1968 case was decided wrongly;

most Conservatives believe that business owners should be able to serve or not serve anyone they choose, for any reason, and if that happens to include racial discrimination,

so be it.

Conservative support for Hobby Lobby in that case is in reality pretty tame stuff compared to the sum total of conservative support for the right to discriminate.

Libertarians believe that, not conservatives. Libertarians believe in freedom, and that includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom means no one can force you to do something you don't want to do by pointing a gun at you, or by threatening to point a gun at you. A guy who doesn't allow blacks or Jews into his restaurant isn't forcing anyone to do anything. However, the government does force restaurant owners to serve people they don't want to serve. That's what public accommodation laws are all about: using force against innocent people.

See what I mean. And people say there's no slippery slope here.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we can safely conclude that the conservative consensus is that using the 1st amendment's religious protections to trump federal law in a non-religious activity should only be a privilege extended to Christians?

lol, how predictable.

not one poster said or implied that------------as usual you are lying.

Sure they did. The ones who claimed you couldn't compare Hobby Lobby's Christian owners to Muslims,

for starters.

And the people who still object to the so-called ground zero mosque.

 

[dblack]

You don't see any worthwhile responses to the above because most Conservatives believe that the 1968 case was decided wrongly;

most Conservatives believe that business owners should be able to serve or not serve anyone they choose, for any reason, and if that happens to include racial discrimination,

so be it.

Conservative support for Hobby Lobby in that case is in reality pretty tame stuff compared to the sum total of conservative support for the right to discriminate.

Libertarians believe that, not conservatives. Libertarians believe in freedom, and that includes the freedom to discriminate. Freedom means no one can force you to do something you don't want to do by pointing a gun at you, or by threatening to point a gun at you. A guy who doesn't allow blacks or Jews into his restaurant isn't forcing anyone to do anything. However, the government does force restaurant owners to serve people they don't want to serve. That's what public accommodation laws are all about: using force against innocent people.

See what I mean. And people say there's no slippery slope here.

Indeed there is a slippery slope. Once we allowed government to get involved in these kinds of decisions, we started sliding down it.

 

[Redfish]

So we can safely conclude that the conservative consensus is that using the 1st amendment's religious protections to trump federal law in a non-religious activity should only be a privilege extended to Christians?

lol, how predictable.

not one poster said or implied that------------as usual you are lying.

Sure they did. The ones who claimed you couldn't compare Hobby Lobby
s Christian owners to Muslims,

for starters.

And the people who still object to the so-called ground zero mosque.

you haven't understood anything that has been posted in this thread, amazing


Do you know that historically muslims have built a mosque on the site of a muslim victory? Do you support a victory mosque at the 9/11 site?

 

[NYcarbineer]

So we can safely conclude that the conservative consensus is that using the 1st amendment's religious protections to trump federal law in a non-religious activity should only be a privilege extended to Christians?

lol, how predictable.

not one poster said or implied that------------as usual you are lying.

Show me any conservative poster here who agrees that Sharia law, or least parts of it, would be protected under the 1st amendment even though it contradicted federal law.

 

[Redfish]

So we can safely conclude that the conservative consensus is that using the 1st amendment's religious protections to trump federal law in a non-religious activity should only be a privilege extended to Christians?

lol, how predictable.

not one poster said or implied that------------as usual you are lying.

Show me any conservative poster here who agrees that Sharia law, or least parts of it, would be protected under the 1st amendment even though it contradicted federal law.

Sharia law would be in violation of the constitution. you are hoisting a false canard.

 

[dilloduck]

So we can safely conclude that the conservative consensus is that using the 1st amendment's religious protections to trump federal law in a non-religious activity should only be a privilege extended to Christians?

lol, how predictable.

not one poster said or implied that------------as usual you are lying.

Show me any conservative poster here who agrees that Sharia law, or least parts of it, would be protected under the 1st amendment even though it contradicted federal law.

Which specific parts are you referring to ?

 

[Redfish]

So we can safely conclude that the conservative consensus is that using the 1st amendment's religious protections to trump federal law in a non-religious activity should only be a privilege extended to Christians?

lol, how predictable.

not one poster said or implied that------------as usual you are lying.

Show me any conservative poster here who agrees that Sharia law, or least parts of it, would be protected under the 1st amendment even though it contradicted federal law.

let me ask you, was obama violating federal law when he unilaterally changed the ACA law numerous times? The law contains specific implementation schedules, obama changed them without congressional action, should he be impeached for violating his oath of office?