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

[peach174]

Hobby Lobby is imposing a potential financial penalty on their employees based on Hobby Lobby owners' religious belief.

Not providing something to someone at no cost is a financial penalty?

That's retarded.

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?

It's pitiful to see that you don't understand that both are right based on civil liberties.

 

[peach174]

How about the wild idea of realizing that God is nowhere near a Hobby Lobby box store? Then it doesn't matter what "religion" the business is because it's a fucking business, not a church.

Religion is everywhere including how you run your business.
You don't check it at the business door.
We had businesses where your word and a hand shake was as good as any law. That wasn't to awfully long ago either. Those are Christian principals which made our businesses strong and helped grow them.
It was called honesty and trustworthiness and laws were made that violated that.
Now we have nothing but force to accommodate only one ideology which is liberalism.
Conservatives and Independents be damned because to them you have no rights.

So it's OK to not let your employees get the Plan B pill because it violates your religion, but it's OK to invest in companies that make the Plan B pill...


It's not about religion...it's about profits, period.

Big difference between a Corp decision and them as individual owners.

 

[peach174]

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

Hobby Lobby was able to get the Supreme Court to overturn a federal law based on the claim that the owner's religious belief trumped the law.

Why couldn't Muslims do that?

Do you see any Muslims going to court over the new ACA?
If you do name them.

 

[peach174]

Remember the so-called ground zero mosque and where the conservative consensus was on that.

They had no problem with it being built father away from ground zero.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Will the radical left ever stop whining about the unfairness of living in the greatest most tolerant Country in the world? So the sexual active babes employed by Hobby Lobby and Catholic Charities and Notre Dame and the Salvation Army and Al Jazeera and a thousand independently owned companies might have to purchase their own methods of eliminating the inconvenient unborn. That's their business. It was brilliant and fair decision by the Supreme Court and only bigots and the low information radical left seems to think the fasist administration was screwed.

interesting how the 'right to privacy' really isn't about privacy at all....

 

[peach174]

How exactly is imposing religious belief onto people in anyway comparable to what the employer covers for healthcare? You guys are so stupid your brain leaks quickly form your ears daily.

Hobby Lobby is imposing a potential financial penalty on their employees based on Hobby Lobby owners' religious belief.

No they're not.
If that were so then their employees would have sued Hobby Lobby.
Do you even realize that only 8.5% of the women in this country use those 4 types of products and that they can get it for free already if they can't afford it?

 

[BluesMistress]

man this is driving them insane

good

fail #2

steph's got nothing.


Big surprise...

How come you can shit talk about a What If and Not acknowledge & be outraged about how Women are ACTUALLY being treated under sharia law where women have NO Choice about Women's Health Care much less Birth control.

Get a fucking clue as to what other women are living with before spewing such bullshit.
We Women in America have every freedom to do and be whoever we choose to be. We can go where we want and love who we choose. We don't need to worry about being sexually mutilated or being stoned to death because some asshole rapes us.

Complaining about lack of FREE Birth Control is pure BS. We have access to much more than most and to bring up Sharia without talking about what is ACTUALLY happening makes you a complete ASS

 

[peach174]

Let me get this straight.

The government is forcing employers to provide a perq to their employees.

Not only that, the government is dictating exactly what the structure of that perq should be.


And you assholes are saying HOBBY LOBBY is the one forcing its beliefs on people? Really?

Yes. That's exactly what they are saying.

It's Hobby Lobby that's the bad guy. Not them for imposing this stupid law on all of us to begin with.

Hobby Lobby defied the messiah's wishes, they are lucky they are still in business

Don't be so quick.
Eric Holder is probably looking into something right now in order to do it.
I bet he can find something that he thinks they violated with China's laws like they did with Gibson guitars.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Let me get this straight.

The government is forcing employers to provide a perq to their employees.

Not only that, the government is dictating exactly what the structure of that perq should be.


And you assholes are saying HOBBY LOBBY is the one forcing its beliefs on people? Really?

Yes. That's exactly what they are saying.

It's Hobby Lobby that's the bad guy. Not them for imposing this stupid law on all of us to begin with.

Hobby Lobby defied the messiah's wishes, they are lucky they are still in business

very lucky....it certainly was not for the lack of the messiah trying to put HL out of business....those fines were murderous....something like 33 Million per year for just not providing insurance.....and another 475 Million per year if they didn't cover all 20 abortifacients.....

about time BO was stopped in his miserable anti-Constitutional, anti-Christian tracks....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Not providing something to someone at no cost is a financial penalty?

That's retarded.

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?

It's pitiful to see that you don't understand that both are right based on civil liberties.

It's pitiful, but predictable, that you can't make an actual coherent argument.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Hobby Lobby is imposing a potential financial penalty on their employees based on Hobby Lobby owners' religious belief.

Not providing something to someone at no cost is a financial penalty?

That's retarded.

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.

 

[Freewill]

How exactly is imposing religious belief onto people in anyway comparable to what the employer covers for healthcare? You guys are so stupid your brain leaks quickly form your ears daily.

Hobby Lobby is imposing a potential financial penalty on their employees based on Hobby Lobby owners' religious belief.

I hope people are not making a career of working at Hobby Lobby.

 

[Freewill]

Not providing something to someone at no cost is a financial penalty?

That's retarded.

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.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And liberals want to silence all mention of Christianity. Funny not so much Islam.

 

[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.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And liberals want to silence all mention of Christianity. Funny not so much Islam.

I see you don't disagree. One more confirmation I'm right.

 

[Siete]

Benghazi Lobby, the NEW bone RW's won't bury.

hopefully, the board will have at least 10 NEW HL threads today

 

[Freewill]

None of them have anything. They think that because the one more Supreme Court judge got the decision wrong than got it right somehow wins the actual argument. No.

One judge? I think you mean 4 got it totally wrong.

No, 5 got it wrong. That's my opinion. They didn't follow the Constitution and they didn't follow precedent.

Wait a minute, did you change the subject to the Obamacare ruling? You know something that really screws a lot of people. Not the HL ruling that just makes liberals mad because they didn't get their way and really it effects very few.

 

[Freewill]

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.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. And liberals want to silence all mention of Christianity. Funny not so much Islam.

I see you don't disagree. One more confirmation I'm right.

Sorry, I ignored your absurdity.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Not providing something to someone at no cost is a financial penalty?

That's retarded.

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.

you libturds aren't 'discriminating' at all.......

when it comes to....anti-Constitutional Americans.....anti-Christian crossburners....criminals....illegals.....perverts....porn....dope-smoking zombies....any kind of crap....you name it....you own it....

 

[paperview]

Not providing something to someone at no cost is a financial penalty?

That's retarded.

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.

You pretty much have them in the vice with that smackdown.

That's why you will continue to see no worthwhile responses.

 

[KNB]

Corporations are People now with freedom of speech (the majority of the world's wealth) and freedom of religion (freedom to follow whichever laws they choose to obey).

When people pool their money together, they don't lose their Constitutional rights in the process. That just chafes you to no end, doesn't it?

No one ever said that they should lose their Constitutional rights, but when people who already have more money than they can ever spend pool their money, We the People lose our Constitutional rights to peaceful assembly, free press, and to petition your government for a redress of grievances. "Free-speech zones", monopolized corporate bullshit media, legalized torture, endless war for peace, etc. etc. etc. This is not the United States of America. This is the United Fascist States of Corporate America, where laws only apply to you if you can't buy your way out of trouble.

Who do you think wrote the laws? Poor people? No, it wasn't poor people. It was the rich people who pool their wealth and resources to make government work for the rich people. You're not rich. You're not one of them, so why do you want to let them get away with this?

There is no such thing as "too big to fail".