Has anyone else heard about Hobby Lobby closing??

Two Peas is Closing
Click here to visit our final product sale. Click here to visit our FAQ page regarding the closing of Two Peas.

Posted 11/30/2012 by **Angie** in NSBR Board
< 1 2 3
 

pennyring
Thrift Ninja

PeaNut 226,011
October 2005
Posts: 23,312
Layouts: 40
Loc: Rite Aid

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:40:23 AM

I saw this a few weeks back and wondered about the employees, and how they felt about the issue.


My BFF works at Hobby Lobby. She's an atheist, but really doesn't care about the religiousness of her employer. It affects her ZERO. She goes through her husband's insurance, so this would be a non-issue for her.

I thought I'd copied the quote about "implantation", but I guess not. Can someone explain why people who are pro-life believe life starts at conception rather than implantation? I'm trying to be respectful, but I truly don't understand. Is it just that they've ALWAYS used the term conception, so they're not willing to budge on this? It just really, really doesn't scientifically make sense to me.



jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,611
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:46:33 AM

The personal beliefs of the owners have no bearing on the business and are therefore irrelevant


It's really sad that the bill of rights are so inconvenient to the "good of society".

What happened to conscientious objectors? Yes, I know that that has been used primarily in military conscription, but it would seem to be valid in this case as well.

It is also sad that as the article said, kosher delis, may be forced to carry non-kosher foods some day, after all they are secular.

The religious beliefs of the owners of the company are very much more important than the law that was written, because you cannot infringe on the free exercise thereof. The 1st amendment doesn't regulate that religion ends at the doors of the church.

This also is an issue for private property rights. Everyone is saying what is for the greater good when it comes to private property of a company.

Hobby Lobby is one of those companies who has increased wages fairly even during the recession, they provide great benefits to their employees already, they even opened a medical center in Oklahoma just for their employees. They make sure that family comes first. Yet because they are holding to their beliefs on this instance, they are vilified, with people hoping they close, or be forced to give up their freedom to practice their religion and run their lives and their businesses as they see fit.

I also think that it is a very slippery slope when the government continues to dictate more and more what a business owner can and cannot do. Because it shows they are attempting to take ownership more and more. Even to the point of the example of not allowing businesses to decide if they want to be a smoking business or not. That should be their right to cater to a clientele who don't mind that. No one is forced to go there, and no one is forced to work in that establishment.

I would hate to see Hobby Lobby close, because they are a great example of a company who truly has proven time and again that they value their employees, and sad that they have to choose now.

But then Obama has been quoted as saying that the constitution is flawed.


But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you, but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.





leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:50:20 AM

why people who are pro-life believe life starts at conception rather than implantation


The cells begin their process of dividing before implantation. "Test tube" babies have been around more than a few years now. So too have babies been born from frozen embryos.

Implantation is needed to keep a pregnancy progressing, but it isn't that miracle of conception.





It is also sad that as the article said, kosher delis, may be forced to carry non-kosher foods some day, after all they are secular.

Crazy times.






If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



lucyg819
pearl-clutching nitpicker

PeaNut 201,774
April 2005
Posts: 16,721
Layouts: 15
Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:53:04 AM

Fortunately for the rest of us, you people don't get to make the rules.



Wow.



Wow, what? I didn't think there was anything too off the wall about what I said. If it wasn't clear:

The Supreme Court has established that the government is not in the business of endorsing any form of religion, such as school-led prayer in public schools. Some very Christian peas and non-peas (always Christian, never any other religion) consistently claim that the 1st amendment doesn't prohibit the government from engaging in any religious practices, only that it prohibits the government from establishing a state religion.

My point is that no matter what they think, the Supreme Court says otherwise, and what the Supreme Court says, goes.

???


LUCYG
northern california

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell



ScrapWench*
Seems a pity to miss such a good pudding.

PeaNut 247,139
February 2006
Posts: 18,899
Layouts: 0
Loc: Spokane, WA

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:57:25 AM
It is nearly impossible to change drug labeling or the package insert on approved drugs. It will take some doing to get the new information Shannah posted about into Plan B.

And the generic version of Plan B is $30+, which can be very prohibitive for women raking in the dough working at Hobby Lobby. Those sluts.


----Theresa

pennyring
Thrift Ninja

PeaNut 226,011
October 2005
Posts: 23,312
Layouts: 40
Loc: Rite Aid

Posted: 12/29/2012 1:00:14 AM
Thanks, LeftTurn. I get the test tube baby thing... I guess the rest is just a difference of opinion, so I'll leave it at that.




gale w
shiny farmwife

PeaNut 40,275
June 2002
Posts: 23,848
Layouts: 52
Loc: Indiana

Posted: 12/29/2012 1:09:25 AM

What these people also fail to see is that many contraception drugs are the best type of drugs for other issues, not used for preventing contraception.
I think I'm restating, but they aren't against offering contraception so much as what they consider drugs that can cause abortion (plan b ).


Wash: "A man walks down the street in that hat, people know he's not afraid of anything."
Jayne: "Damn straight."

my blog
my swagbucks referral link

Scando3
PeaNut

PeaNut 564,097
August 2012
Posts: 59
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 6:11:37 AM
Why is it OK for some pharmacists that do not want to dispense the Plan B pill and that's OK but not a privately owned company that does not want to have this as part of their insurance. Where is the fairness in this?
Perhpas Obama wants them to go out of busness and add to the unemployment rolls.

lynlam
Don'tcha wish your girlfriend had spurs like mine?

PeaNut 46,248
August 2002
Posts: 6,800
Layouts: 41
Loc: Ohio

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:18:59 AM
"As for kittymomma and "keep your legs closed" ... holy hell, is it the '50s again? I think women, married and even unmarried, are entitled to have sex. It isn't an infringement on your personal rights"
---------------

If you work for a company that does not offer BC coverage, and you can't scrape up the $10 a month for BC from PP, or a box of condoms, then yes, you should make the personally responsible decision to "keep your legs closed". Just because men and women have the right to have sex does not mean they have the right to have someone else pay for their birth control. Why is that hard to understand?

As to HL being a business and therefore should be forced to "follow the law" - in this case that is utter bullshit. Govt should stay out of business period. It only stifles innovation, discourages entrepreneurship, steals profits and depresses wages and hiring.





"We demand entire freedom of action and then expect the government in some miraculous way to save us from the consequences of our own acts... Self-government means self-reliance." Calvin Coolidge

Lynlam, the second-tier Pea, paid (except it appears she is not) political shill.
Uploaded with iPhone client

Me GOP
Movin On Pea

PeaNut 29,902
February 2002
Posts: 19,570
Layouts: 16

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:43:24 AM
Thanks Shannah,

After reading the links, didn't each state that implantation was not "excluded?" And other published studies at the NIH when searching for "Plan B implantation" cite that implantation interference cannot be ruled out.

But my issue isn't so much how Plan B works, as it is the choice of the private business owner.


Tracey

writermom1
Thrift Whisperer

PeaNut 114,407
November 2003
Posts: 22,729
Layouts: 66
Loc: At the intersection of Hooterville and Stars Hollow

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:46:13 AM
The problem is likely that if HL is permitted to pick and choose coverage then scores of other employers will suddenly have an issue.

You want to bring back that old time religion? Let human beings think it might save them a buck

If taken at face value why are employers responsible for our health coverage? Why not our landlords or mortgage lenders? Many drive to work -
Why is there not a demand for employer sponsored auto insurance?

I'm as grateful as anyone for our health coverage but when you really think about it - how did that even take hold? "You want me to perform X service for you? Fine, but you will not only have to pay me but provide medical coverage for my family as well."



Uploaded with iPhone client

redayh
Stuck In The Bucket

PeaNut 523,218
October 2011
Posts: 700
Layouts: 9

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:03:33 AM

The religious beliefs of the owners of the company are very much more important than the law that was written, because you cannot infringe on the free exercise thereof.


This might be the most ridiculous thing I've read in here and I have read some truly crazy things here.

No, your personal beliefs do not trump the law. I might personally believe its okay to marry a 13 year old. That might be part of my religion. But it's not okay and I should go to jail.

This extends to other areas of the law as well. You people kill me with thinking that a private business owner should just make up their own rules. We used to have that and we had to legislate to fix many of the problems that caused.
Uploaded with iPhone client

Me GOP
Movin On Pea

PeaNut 29,902
February 2002
Posts: 19,570
Layouts: 16

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:13:16 AM
Personally, I don't see how this translates into a private business owner "making up their own rules."

This from the OP article...


Heaton wrote that “the court is not unsympathetic” to the company’s desire to not pay for abortion-causing drugs but he said the Obamacare law “results in concerns and issues not previously confronted by companies or their owners.”


The firm went to court to challenge the law. Ultimately, either the court will rule in their favor, or they won't. Either HL will comply or they won't and pay a fine. How is that making up their own rules?



Tracey

jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,611
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 9:41:34 AM

No, your personal beliefs do not trump the law. I might personally believe its okay to marry a 13 year old. That might be part of my religion. But it's not okay and I should go to jail.

This extends to other areas of the law as well. You people kill me with thinking that a private business owner should just make up their own rules. We used to have that and we had to legislate to fix many of the problems that caused.


You do realize that the constitution covers rights up until they conflict with the rights of another person or cause damage to their property. Just because healthcare reform is law, doesn't make it a right. It is not part of the Constitution. So yes, in this case it should trump a law that should never have been written.

And quite frankly the good of the people, nor the government own a business. The business owner owns the business, and they have a right to run it according to their beliefs. Hopefully they will stand up for their beliefs and many businesses will choose to close rather than to allow the government to dictate their religious and moral beliefs, then what will everyone say.



scrappinheather
PeaNut

PeaNut 180,775
December 2004
Posts: 102
Layouts: 0
Loc: Washington

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:10:20 AM
I personally think they are being ridiculous. It is a federal law and they have to comply with it just like any other state and federal law. They don't get to pick and choose what laws they comply with. Under their theory if they wanted to open a business selling guns within 500 feet of a school they would argue they can because they believe in the second amendment. I do not think that would be a very successful argument either. Once laws are passed, citizens need to comply with the laws. No one is forcing them personally to take birth control, use the morning after pill, or have an abortion. The law is ensuring that women have a right to affordable health care coverage that covers all their needs. Makes me never want to shop at hobby lobby again.

Heather

He**inWA
*Clever Pea Title Here*

PeaNut 220,816
August 2005
Posts: 9,043
Layouts: 2
Loc: Hidden under a pile of scrap!

Posted: 12/29/2012 11:34:37 AM
My issue with HL refusing to cover meds is that other corporations have to cover. It is a very slippery slope that would allow other organizations to deny coverage of other things based on religion, whether it realistically exists in the heart of the owners or not .... not saying that the HL corporate owners don't truly believe, just saying that can be easily espoused by non-believers if they decide it is to the corporate benefit.
If there is no division of religion and insurance coverage, it is likely that people could be denied their heart surgery because it involves the administration of blood products, a transplant, or any other costly procedure because "it isn't the will of ____ (insert God or whatever religious authority you believe in).

Not to hijack, but I think the worst thing that ever happened with "Plan B" is that it was hearlded as 'the morning after pill" which confused it with RU-486 that is available in Europe.
Plan B is not an abortion drug.
The second worse thing was speculation that it blocked implantation, which it does not. If implantation were blocked by Plan B, it would likely be so for users of regular birth control pills, and we ALL know that is not the case
NY Times

My guess is that a lot of the current public outcry against contraceptive coverage is backed by those pushing other agendas.

JMO


He**inWA




detaildiva
BucketHead

PeaNut 100,204
August 2003
Posts: 626
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:24:54 PM

Follow the law or pay the fine. HL needs to quit trying to shove their beliefs down their employees throats.



How about this? The government needs to stop creating laws that would force people to violate their own religious beliefs. How about "the government needs to stop creating situations in which people have to check their religious beliefs at the door in order to participate in the marketplace?"

Hobby Lobby is not "shoving their beliefs down their employees' throats" because they choose not to pay for birth control in their health insurance plan. There are all kinds of things companies offer or don't offer in health plans. People are free to choose to work for a company based on the benefits offered. If birth control coverage is important to them, they are free to work at a company that offers that coverage. Additionally, they can choose to work for them and pay for their own birth control.

If enough people decide they don't want to work for those companies who refuse to offer that coverage then that company will either not grow like they could otherwise OR they'll go under. That's how a marketplace works--everyone involved has a choice. The employer has a choice, the employee has a choice, and potential employees have a choice.

But now with the government stepping in, the only people being forced in this whole scenario are the employers.

And, ironically, the people who will lose in this scenario are the employees, because there's an excellent chance that Hobby Lobby's owners would rather fight this law until the company is driven into the ground by the government or just close it down all together. And how many of those employees are even using Hobby Lobby's health plan? A lot of them are singles who are covered by their parents' plans or people who are working there as a supplementary job and are covered by their spouse's plan. If the government fines Hobby Lobby into the dust, those people will be forced out of work--not by Hobby Lobby's owners, but by the government's fines--over a plan that a lot of them aren't even using.

And frankly, the government's insistence that people check their religious beliefs at the door of a business is a violation of the 1st amendment. I am not religious everywhere but where I work. I am religious, period. I understand why the government has the whole "separation of church and state" in government facilities. But by doing what they are doing to Hobby Lobby, they are crossing the line. Hobby Lobby is not a government facility.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." By forcing religious people by law to pay for something against their religious beliefs, Congress has done exactly that--made a law prohibiting the free exercise of the beliefs of Hobby Lobby's owners. Hobby Lobby isn't forcing anyone to work for them. They aren't forcing anyone in their establishment to pray like they do, to attend church, or anything of the sort. But they are being forced to pay for something that is not a right, that is not provided for in the Constitution, and is against their most sacred religious beliefs.

It's not Hobby Lobby doing the forcing here. Everyone involved in this scenario had freedom to choose--right up until the government decided to create a law that prohibits the owners' abilities to live their religious beliefs.

beachgurl
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 288,459
December 2006
Posts: 6,892
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 12:48:36 PM
If I had the financial resources that the Green family has, I would not continue to operate my business if it meant going against my religious beliefs. To put profit or money ahead of your own beliefs especially when you have the financial resources not to, would be devastating to your heart/soul.

If I were in their shoes, I would be looking into changing to a non-profit situation. They are already funding many projects with the income from HL, so why not just take it that little bit further. They could still take a paycheck, just not the "profits". I don't believe the amount of compensation a non-profit can pay is restricted. At least you wouldn't think so based on what many secular non-profits pay. Then they can be a religious organization, rather than a privately owned business. Still do much of the same things, but not be forced to pay for people using something they consider abortion causing.

As I have mentioned before, the solution may well be moving to more part-time employees.
Unfortunately, not something that is good for those in those positions, but it would allow them to skirt the entire issue.

how ACA incentivizes part-time employment




Ouiser
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 196,226
March 2005
Posts: 9,347
Layouts: 0
Loc: in the South

Posted: 12/29/2012 1:42:42 PM
You don't know much about Hobby Lobby. They do not force anything down their employees throats. They pay well and don't care what you do on your Sunday off. They choose to spend it at their Church and don't feel like they should make anyone else work that day.

I had both my kids in a Catholic hospital. When I asked to have my tubes tied, I was informed I could not as it was a Catholic hospital. Well, I'm not Catholic and neither was my OB Dr., but their house - their rules. H.L. has no problem providing insurance for their employees. They just don't want to provide something their beliefs are dead set against. Just as the hospital would not tie tubes.


http://www.swagbucks.com/refer/Ouiser

scrappower
Allons-y Alonso

PeaNut 174,150
October 2004
Posts: 15,754
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 1:48:10 PM
And again, many of us pay for things we don't believe in or agree with. I pay for things with my taxes that go directly against my religious beliefs. But that is part of living in this country. Why are they more important than others? That is how some are making it sound? They can still practice their religion, no one is stopping them. But their business is not a religion. It is really simple actually.

If I didn't pay my taxes I would go to jail, why should they get a pass?



Simply_Lovely
AncestralPea

PeaNut 463,295
April 2010
Posts: 4,172
Layouts: 3
Loc: New York City

Posted: 12/29/2012 1:57:52 PM

Not true.

Washington state's medicaid covers condoms. Patient brings box of condoms of choice and Provider One card to pharmacist and I run it through the plan. It is always cheaper to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases by paying for condoms than not...


Really? I honestly had no idea. You learn something new every day =)


Hobby Lobby is not trying to not pay for normal Birth Control like the pill, or a shot or something like that what they are against is


I wasn't discussing what HL is or isn't covering, because frankly I don't know. I was just responding to the ignorant poster who thinks birth control is only for sluts who want to have sex without a condom. Such ignorance makes me so angry and yet there a ton of people who don't understand what birth control pills really do.


The separation was to keep gov't out of religion not the other way around.



Uhhh....no! It's to keep both separate. But you're openly agreeing with Skybar so I don't know why I'm wasting my breath.


It is also sad that as the article said, kosher delis, may be forced to carry non-kosher foods some day, after all they are secular.


I don't see how that is Constitutionally possible. You can't force a business to sell specific things. That's a scare tactic.


If you work for a company that does not offer BC coverage, and you can't scrape up the $10 a month for BC from PP, or a box of condoms, then yes, you should make the personally responsible decision to "keep your legs closed". Just because men and women have the right to have sex does not mean they have the right to have someone else pay for their birth control. Why is that hard to understand?


What part of "birth control is used for more than just sex-stuff" do YOU not understand?? You can't really be that dense. I've been on it since way before I started having sex. But according to you and the like I still shouldn't have it covered.





Meow!

leftturnonly
Will trade mosquitoes for cookies.

PeaNut 416,788
March 2009
Posts: 22,257
Layouts: 0
Loc: Living in Kim's Perfect World, again.

Posted: 12/29/2012 2:04:19 PM

The stupid system of business providing the majority of health insurance in this country started with government interference in the labor market. After WWII, the govt instituted wage controls. In order to compete for workers, employers hit on the idea of adding health insurance to compensation packages, since they couldn't pay more wages. The practice stuck.

Govt interference in business decisions ALWAYS has unintended consequences. This is one.

One of the mistakes of ACA is putting mandates on employers to perpetuate the idea they are obligated to provide health insurance. That should have been done away with and health insurance returned to a truly free market, with various packages of benefits available across state lines, to be purchased by people independent of employers. Employers could have had the option to give a health insurance allowance and/or arrange package deals, instead of being required to provide insurance, an issue that was once a labor market based business decision.

The ACA should have severed the tight connection between health insurance and employers - instead, they made it more burdensome on employers. Ironic to keep this system in place by an administration that has presided over the lowest percentage of the workforce actually having an employer to get insurance from.


Thank you Nightowl.





If PC is the way to get to Heaven, I'm going straight to Hell.



ScrapWench*
Seems a pity to miss such a good pudding.

PeaNut 247,139
February 2006
Posts: 18,899
Layouts: 0
Loc: Spokane, WA

Posted: 12/29/2012 2:11:59 PM

What part of "birth control is used for more than just sex-stuff" do YOU not understand?? You can't really be that dense. I've been on it since way before I started having sex. But according to you and the like I still shouldn't have it covered.



Nah, they are just calling you a slut. You hussy, you.


----Theresa

Mrs Smarty Pants
PEAing Like R. Kelly

PeaNut 180,865
December 2004
Posts: 13,443
Layouts: 0
Loc: Brooklyn, NY/Now Newark NJ

Posted: 12/29/2012 2:17:12 PM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not true.

Washington state's medicaid covers condoms. Patient brings box of condoms of choice and Provider One card to pharmacist and I run it through the plan. It is always cheaper to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases by paying for condoms than not...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Really? I honestly had no idea. You learn something new every day =)






NYC Medicaid also covers condoms and other OTC drugs/first aid and has for at least the past 20 years or so. (I used to work in pharmacies in all 5 boroughs )

NY GOV Medicaid

Berty22
PeaNut

PeaNut 256,724
April 2006
Posts: 298
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 2:48:46 PM
"As to HL being a business and therefore should be forced to "follow the law" - in this case that is utter bullshit. Govt should stay out of business period. It only stifles innovation, discourages entrepreneurship, steals profits and depresses wages and hiring."
---------
I totally agree! Why the hell should the government be able to stop a business from dumping toxic waste in our rives? Who cares if the people living nearby get cancer and other ailments? The business should just be able to do whatever it wants, whenever they want! ( oh, and to be perfectly clear here, what I wrote is meant to be sarcastic.)

Berty

beachgurl
Ancient Ancestor of Pea

PeaNut 288,459
December 2006
Posts: 6,892
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:18:01 PM
I'm wondering what religion commands the dumping of toxic materials, but I digress. I have however, heard of plenty of religions that forbid the taking of innocent life.



If I didn't pay my taxes I would go to jail, why should they get a pass?

This is supposedly not a tax. It's an employee benefit.

I am certain that there is something that the owners of HL disagree with regarding how their tax money is spent, however they pay their tax just as you do. So, they are not asking for/getting a pass to not pay their taxes because there are things the government spends money on that they don't like. Not a good comparison.




hester56
PeaNut

PeaNut 347,444
November 2007
Posts: 88
Layouts: 0
Loc: Washington State

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:29:22 PM
I live in North Central Washington State and I just drove past where a new Hobby Lobby is going in. A new sign since yesterday said "Hobby Lobby Opening Soon".

Berty22
PeaNut

PeaNut 256,724
April 2006
Posts: 298
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:36:08 PM
"I'm wondering what religion commands the dumping of toxic materials, but I digress. I have however, heard of plenty of religions that forbid the taking of innocent life. "
------------

My point is that no matter what the owners of a business believe- whether it be based in religious ideas, world view, business model, etc.- they still have to follow the laws. In order to operate a business in the US, you (collective you) must follow certain rules and laws. One does not have to agree with them or like it, but it is what you must do. Anyone is free to go through legislative channels to try and have the laws changed; but, in the end abiding by the laws is the price one pays to do business. If someone cannot abide by this, then perhaps they should rethink their decision to own a business.

Berty

redboots
BucketHead

PeaNut 399,301
November 2008
Posts: 915
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:40:20 PM

I have to say even though I am overall a supporter of the affordable care act, I side with HL and the Catholic Church on this one. I think the affordable care act should mandate coverage for emergency/catastrophic, not lifestyle issues like contraceptives.


I disagree with your assertion that contraceptives are merely prescribed to address "lifestyle issues."

I was prescribed birth control long before I became sexually active because I suffered from severe ovarian cysts.

What about Type 2 diabetics? Heart medications for those who have had heart attacks or strokes due to obesity and/or smoking? These issues are largely caused by "lifestyle issues;" do you believe that treatment should be withheld for these patients?

The bottom line for me is that medical care is between patient and doctor. It is a slippery slope when you talk about denying care for "lifestyle choices."

lucyg819
pearl-clutching nitpicker

PeaNut 201,774
April 2005
Posts: 16,721
Layouts: 15
Loc: gone to chemo with BethAnne

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:45:30 PM
GOP, did you miss my response above, or did I completely and totally alienate you this time around?


and health insurance returned to a truly free market, with various packages of benefits available across state lines

slight hijack here, but I have to mention how surprised I am every time a conservative makes this suggestion.

You guys want almost everything done at the state level, and yet in this particular case, you want to dump the state supervision of insurance, in which each individual state decides what kind of coverage it wants mandated for its own local population, and make the whole thing nationwide.

I don't really care how it's done ... whatever works in the most common-sense manner works for me. But how do you justify this kind of "my usual rules don't apply if it's inconvenient for me" thinking?

ETA oh wait, I think I figured it out. We're talking **free market** here. I guess that takes precedence over states' rights.

/end hijack


LUCYG
northern california

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
--Bertrand Russell



Ihaveonly1L
Packer Pea in the middle of Vikingland

PeaNut 81,645
April 2003
Posts: 5,950
Layouts: 76
Loc: Minnesota

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:45:51 PM
I'm surprised people think that the views of the employer should dictate the medical coverage their family receives. I appreciate their belief, but if this becomes the norm, it is a very slippery slope for all of us that EARN benefits as part of our compensation packages.


Michele

*~*amanda*~*
...

PeaNut 393,905
October 2008
Posts: 7,415
Layouts: 0
Loc: Illinois

Posted: 12/29/2012 3:51:18 PM
I'm totally against obamacare so of course I think what is happening to Hobby Lobby is wrong, and I'll leave it at that.

I do kind of admire HL's fight. They are standing up for something they believe in and are putting their money where their mouth is, so to speak. I admire that strong conviction.

I personally LOVE Hobby Lobby and hope that the fines they will have to pay will not run them out of business.

I wonder how long they can stay open with that fine imposed on a daily basis.



tracylynn
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 54,403
November 2002
Posts: 2,724
Layouts: 0
Loc: Washington State

Posted: 12/29/2012 4:19:13 PM

My point is that no matter what the owners of a business believe- whether it be based in religious ideas, world view, business model, etc.- they still have to follow the laws. In order to operate a business in the US, you (collective you) must follow certain rules and laws. One does not have to agree with them or like it, but it is what you must do. Anyone is free to go through legislative channels to try and have the laws changed; but, in the end abiding by the laws is the price one pays to do business. If someone cannot abide by this, then perhaps they should rethink their decision to own a business.


I have a lot of thoughts on this subject and some things written by other posters. But this response is DEAD ON. Agree with every word.



tracylynn
StuckOnPeas

PeaNut 54,403
November 2002
Posts: 2,724
Layouts: 0
Loc: Washington State

Posted: 12/29/2012 4:37:46 PM

While I get the idea and I think we should be law abiding citizens I don't feel every law is a good or wise law.


It doesn't matter if I think every law is good or wise. The laws are the laws. I have to follow them or if I get caught breaking them, I pay the consequences, whether that includes a fine, community service or jail.

I didn't look at your link but I'm going to assume (yes, I know what they say about assuming) that they are silly, outdated, obtuse laws that are likely not enforced. And there in lies the difference. The ACA is being enforced. As an employer in the USA they are required to follow it. If not, they can pay the fines.

Of course they can fight the law, but it's not looking so good for them as of right now since the SCOTUS refused to hear an appeal this week for them. If they choose to pay the 1.3 Million dollar a day fine, that's on them.




jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,611
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:09:54 PM

The problem is likely that if HL is permitted to pick and choose coverage then scores of other employers will suddenly have an issue.


Every business SHOULD have the right to decide what benefits it offers to its employees. Not be dictated what benefits it has to provide.


It is a federal law and they have to comply with it just like any other state and federal law.


You forgot that there is also Constitutional law, and THAT trumps federal and state law, and in this instance, Obamacare is infringing on the 1st Amendment by forcing someone to not practice their religious beliefs. Religious faith does NOT end at the doorstep of the church. Freedom of Religion is NOT a private freedom. The only separation of religion is between the state and religion, not from the public and religion.



If there is no division of religion and insurance coverage,


Insurance is not a government entity, so it is not protected by the separation of Church and State. Businesses will always be able to decide what benefits they want to offer their employees.


Govt interference in business decisions ALWAYS has unintended consequences. This is one


It's because many progressives believe that business operate at the permission of the government, and are not truly private property.


The majority of their employees are unskilled and low wage earners.

There are many religious run organizations that provide these types of benefits to their employees. I could name 10 but will not-you can research yourself. If you live in a large city with an outstanding Catholic hospital there is a good chance 'reproductive services' are a covered benefit.


You do know that in regards to retail that Hobby Lobby goes above and beyond in taking care of their employees. They pay almost double the federal minimum wage for full time employees and have raised that for four years in a row in a very tough economy. They are actually an example of what many people feel a business should be and how a business should treat their employees. Yet one instance where the government has created a law that conflicts with the 1st amendment and they are being demonized. If enough business take a stand like Hobby Lobby, there is nothing that the government can do. They can fine them out of existence, but all that does is hurt the employees. It's not like the government can force them to stay in business no matter what.

I would also say that just because one religious institution does something doesn't mean it doesn't go against the religious rights of another faith.


If I didn't pay my taxes I would go to jail, why should they get a pass?


Actually the penalty is the tax, the healthcare plan is a product. And Business is private property and therefore if it is owned by a Christian, Muslim or Jew it is their constitutional right to run it by the tenets of their faith. And it sounds as if they are willing to pay the "tax" instead of going against their faith. They are just pointing out that the "tax" is going to run them out of business.


I don't see how that is Constitutionally possible. You can't force a business to sell specific things. That's a scare tactic.


No one would have thought that it would be Constitutionally possible to force someone to purchase a product. But they have skirted around it by calling the fine a tax. You can buy a product or pay a "tax". But if a business is not truly owned by the owner, but is owned by the greater good of the public, it is not far fetched to see a day where they can force any business to buy or sell anything they want them too or be "taxed" for not doing it.


What part of "birth control is used for more than just sex-stuff" do YOU not understand?? You can't really be that dense. I've been on it since way before I started having sex. But according to you and the like I still shouldn't have it covered.



From my understanding, it isn't birth control that I believe they have the problem with, but one specific drug. I don't know enough to know if the "plan B" drug has any other use other than in terms of preventing pregnancy.


I totally agree! Why the hell should the government be able to stop a business from dumping toxic waste in our rives?


These type of arguments always make me laugh. There is a difference in the government regulating things that a business can do that cause harm or damage to other people or to their rights, and the government mandating the purchase of a product.


I wonder how long they can stay open with that fine imposed on a daily basis.


Unfortunately like many other businesses they will probably be forced to trim pay, hours and head count on employees in order to stay in business as long as possible. Another example of government interference and unintended consequences. Of course if they had read the bill before they passed it, they might have actually been able to ward off a lot of these issues. But now they are taking the "we won, shut up" approach.


If they choose to pay the 1.3 Million dollar a day fine, that's on them.


Yes, and good for them for following their beliefs. Hobby Lobby belongs to the Green's, they may sell to the public but the business and its holdings belong do not belong to the public. So when the "tax" for not offering what the government has determined should be offered, 18,000 jobs are at risk, and that is on Obamacare. No one is forced to work for Hobby Lobby. So no they are not pushing their religion on anyone. The government is forcing the belief of the government and the employees on the Green's and their privately owned property.



celiasmoot
PeaNut

PeaNut 464,133
April 2010
Posts: 41
Layouts: 20
Loc: Richmond, VA

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:32:59 PM
The owners are free to have any religious beliefs they choose. However, as far as the law is concernec their business is a for profit enterprise and NOT a religious institution or nonprofit faith based entity. As such, they do not get a religious exemption from the enforcement of laws. They cannot and should not use their personal religious beliefs to make decisions for their employees as to their reproductive rights. Simple as that.

hillhouse6
PeaAddict

PeaNut 332,592
August 2007
Posts: 1,895
Layouts: 0
Loc: kansas

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:38:19 PM
We are seeing the beginning of many issues that are posed by Obamacare. I agree that HL as well as others are required to follow the law, but they are not required to stay in business. The Catholic Church provides billions of dollars in healthcare and education but may well decide to close those institutions. The bishops are continuing to hold discussions about that very thing. I, as a business owner, have many difficult decions to make regarding Obamacare. We will likely close our doors with this being one of the factors.

jonda1974
The new Rhinestone Cowboy

PeaNut 107,564
September 2003
Posts: 8,611
Layouts: 0

Posted: 12/29/2012 7:41:21 PM

The owners are free to have any religious beliefs they choose. However, as far as the law is concernec their business is a for profit enterprise and NOT a religious institution or nonprofit faith based entity.


It doesn't have to be a religious institution to be covered by the first amendment. The Green's own Hobby Lobby. No one is forced to work for them. There is no separation of church and public.


< 1 2 3
Show/Hide Icons . Show/Hide Signatures
Hide
{{ title }}
{{ icon }}
{{ body }}
{{ footer }}