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

[peach174]

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.

What part of civil liberties are you not getting?

Does Satanists have the right to kill people in the name of their religion? NO

 

[dilloduck]

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.

Since liberals refuse to call their system of morality and agenda a religion I guess the think they get free access to having things their way.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

did you not read the quote in the piece?


It was very specific about which med scientologists and hindus wouldn't have to cover.


Fuck, people, read or don't post in my thread.

It was very specific about which med scientologists and hindus wouldn't have to cover.

I'm sure that would be awful for some reason.
Maybe you could spell it out?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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

That's OK now.

It wasn't before Hobby Lobby, but now that we have the HL ruling we need to change our standards so we don't look like inconsistent racist teabaggers.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If the Hobby Lobby was run by Muslims, the Supreme Court never would have taken the case

What would Muslims have refused to cover?

 

[bripat9643]

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?

Nothing trumps the Constitution, nimrod. Much of Sharia violates the Constitution.

The court ruled that a law that Clinton signed trumped Obama's regulation. Even someone with brain damage can understand how that works.

 

[peach174]

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.

That's Libertarians who believe that not Conservatives.

 

[bripat9643]

Um, how about just don't work there?

How about you just don't live here?

He has a right to live here. You have no right to work for any particular employer.

You just can't help revealing your fascist cloven hoof, can you?

 

[Kosh]

When the far left Taliban gets this upset over nothing, it is good day as the constitution is safe from the far left tyranny and the world becomes a much better place.

 

[bripat9643]

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

Quote one conservative saying the government should have made it illegal.

 

[candycorn]

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!!

???

There are lots of other factors involved... First if it was run by those who practice Islam, there would likely be no Hobby Lobby as we know it. I understand the "what if" scenario and the hypothetical and there is a place for that but women who work for Hobby Lobby would have far more serious things to worry about than reproductive insurance matters in that same hypothetical.

What is more likely and I would suggest more damaging is that if you're female and you work for a local medical supply distributor--I worked for one such place--and you're doing well as a saleswoman; making your sales, hitting your numbers, moving up the ladder over 8 years and are given some bigger accounts by the boss. Then one day, the boss gets sick and decides to sell out as was the case with our boss. He sells it to Mohammed whomever (not what happened in our case) who believes women have their place but doesn't feel that women should supervise men; your 8 years of service and experience are now for naught since your path is blocked by the irrational beliefs of your boss.

If he thought you were not bright enough, you could go back to college.
If he thought you were not experienced enough, you could apprentice somewhere else.
If he thought you were not assertive enough, you could take classes for that.
If he thought you were not strong enough, you could start exercising
If he thought you were not attractive enough, you could dress better or get a makeover.

There is nothing you can do about your gender.

This is the real concern I have for the Hobby Lobby ruling. I understand in politics, perception is reality so the perception of "winning" by getting 4 types of contraception off the table is worth celebrating but it's laughable both in terms of it's effectiveness as well as the long game of republicans being seen as anti-woman.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe it's true. Maybe the radical left really doesn't know the difference between the 1st Amendment freedom of religion and Sharia law.

What the fuck are you talking about?

It's apples to apples - Sharia Law, Christian rules, Scietologist policy---- all APPLES.


Try not to be so fucking stupid when posting in my threads.

You're the only one who gets to be stupid in your threads. LOL!

 

[Gadawg73]

In liberal lalaland, if you aren't given something for free, you're being denied that thing.

What utter stupidity.

Well, I agree with your premise but employers never offer anything for free to employees.
The cost of the health insurance is figured into their total compensation for the year.
That is what I always tell everyone when they take a job and they proclaim "I get free health care benefits".
Nothing is ever free.
But your premise is right, if I am the employer and I pay the freight then I should set the rules on what is covered and what is not.

 

[Mad Scientist]

If Hobby Lobby were run by Muslims HazelNuts would shop there everyday.

"See how tolerant I am? - Hazelnuts.

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

Contraceptives never "eliminate the inconvenient unborn".
And I supported the decision 100%.
Has nothing to do with abortion though.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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

That's OK now.

It wasn't before Hobby Lobby, but now that we have the HL ruling we need to change our standards so we don't look like inconsistent racist teabaggers.

what are you talking about.....? muslims impose their beliefs all over the place....and you leftards support them...

just what was it you idiots said about 'diversity'......?

 

[Gadawg73]

What baffles the shit out of me having been in business for 32 years with 3 businesses is everyone that knows just a tad about the risks involved in business knows that all corporations are always, have always been and always will be PEOPLE.

Leftist Democrat politicians cater to the economic illiterate. Talking points labeling corporations some mysterious entity in the sky always works on the dumb masses.

 

[Gadawg73]

The left wants it both ways on this issue:
They correctly want government out of the private lives of citizens and do not want to give the power to GOVERNMENT to pick and choose who gets a "legal" abortion and who does not.
Yet out of the other side of their mouths they INCORRECTLY want that same GOVERNMENT to force private business to offer health insurance, specific drugs and devices, services while NOT having to pay for it.

 

[Againsheila]

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!!

Hobby Lobby provides 16 different methods of birth control free for it's workers. SIXTEEN! Why is everyone upset they don't cover 4 more? Medicare has stopped paying for my father in law's diabetes medication saying he can take Ziperide instead of Gliberide. Well the ziperide doesn't work so we pay for the Gliberide. How come no one is up in arms about the changes to Medicare thanks to Obama but there's all this hoopla over the fact that Hobby Lobby only provides SIXTEEN forms of birth control?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

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.