soulsister wrote:"I am very sorry that this is happening to one
of the very few stores that are closed on Sundays so that families may spend
time together and they can go to church."Yeah, because all those
stores open on Sunday REQUIRE and FORCE families to shop on Sunday!?Huh?
Hurrah for Hobby Lobby! Sad that they're one of the few with values AND the
guts to stand up for them!
KC Mormon, again, I understand exactly what you are saying. It really is not
difficult. You want to follow the Constitution, you think it is a divine
document (I assume), right after you change the Constitution. It really is not
hard to understand what you are saying. Are there any other changes you would
like in it? Turtles, I agree with you, single payer is something
that should be, and should have been looked. But I disagree that religious
people would not try to make a religious issue out of it.
Hobby Lobby and some of the comments on this board are great examples for the to
remove health care from the hands of employers.A single payer system
is what we need. That way employers are not at a cost disadvantage and religion
will not have to take place in the argument for health care access in this
markAgain you clearly do not understand the Constitution. NOT one
conservative has suggested as some liberals have getting rid of the
Constitution. What we HAVE suggested is to FOLLOW the Constitution INCLUDING
Article 5 that is all about AMENDING the constitution to fix problems. Can you
really say that we do not have a problem? When you have a fiscal "fix"
that raises taxes $41 for $1 in cuts and results in $4 trillion being added to
the national debt we CLEARLY have a problem. So what does the CONSTITUTION say
we should do about the PROBLEM? Not through it out like some liberals. Not
pretend it does not exist. It says AMEND it either by 2/3 of both Houses of
Congress then 3/4 of the states or by 2/3 of the states calling for a
Constitutional Convention and then 3/4 of the states. Two different amendments
could solve this problem, either a balanced budget (government only spends what
they have) or term limits ( with out 20+ years they will stop putting things in
like a train between New York and New Jersey into Hurricane Sandy relief that
has nothing to do with it).
Nope, KC Mormon, I understood you exactly. You want to follow the Constitution,
as long as you can change the Constitution. Just like I said. All
you people that want to support and shop at Hobby Lobby, you better hurry.
Because they are going to lose their court case. And racking up 1.5 million a
day, they are going to be out of business when that bill comes due.
Here is another that no one seems to have noticed. The owner of Domino's
and his company has won in a district court the same thing that Hobby Lobby
lost. As this continues to move you will see more and more where the decision
is going to have to be made by the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, this court is
5-4 conservative but Roberts seems to be a bit wishy-washy.
I've been hearing lots of whining about Hobby Lobby's position--and
that "Hobby Lobby is trying to dictate what kind of life their employees
live." Not so. Hobby Lobby has not said anything about employees
who chose to use this drug--they are free to make their own decision whether to
do so or not. It is just that Hobby Lobby will not be a party to it by being
forced to PAY for it.
The objection of Hobby Lobby is just against abortion inducing birth
controls?Breaking News: Victory for Hobby Lobby! All abortion
inducing medications have been taken out! Or rather, they were never in there in
the first place. The "Morning After Pill" does not cause an abortion. Do
I am very sorry that this is happening to one of the very few stores that are
closed on Sundays so that families may spend time together and they can go to
church. I applaud you Hobby Lobby! Hobby Lobby is my favorite store and I will
continue shopping and supporting them!
Hobby Lobby's products are cheap but overpriced kitsch, just like their
management philosophy and their healthcare benefits.
If employers should not be required to provide any health coverage as some
believe....then wages would need to be high enough for people to afford to buy
it themselves or the government has to subsidize it. The most important single
change necessary if employers pay or subsidize employee insurance though is to
think about health care in terms of value, not cost. Value is the health
outcomes achieved for the money spent. Employers actually should have an
interest in providing insurance for employees since healthy employees actually
cost less to the employer (in sick time, productivity etc.) than sick ones.
So-called consumer-driven health plans not only failed to benefit the consumer,
but they hurt employers as well. Nowhere else in the industrialized world does a
family, already down on its luck over a job loss, also suffer the loss of its
health insurance. It happens only in America, under employment-based insurance.
So...the aim should be to develop a robust, parallel system of fully portable
insurance that individuals or families can purchase on their own, in a properly
regulated and organized market, with public or subsidies where deemed.
markYou clearly did not understand ME and do NOT understand the
Constitution. What some Liberals are calling for is DOING AWAY WITH THE
CONSTITUTION, what I and many conservatives are are calling for is ACTUALLY
listed in the Constitution. It is called AMENDING it! It is a process were the
states by 2/3 majority make small changes to the Constitution to solve a long
term problem. This was the same Constitutional process that ended slavery and
limited Presidents to 2 terms. We have a REAL problem now of SPENDING what we do
not have. Politicians who have been in office for 15-30 years and still plan to
run keep promising to spend on things we do NOT need just to get re-elected.
Originally the idea was you would serve for a few terms and either die or step
down. This kept some of what we see today from happening. Only now they actually
look at the seats as not the PEOPLES but THEIRS as in the case of Ted Kennedy.
This would go farther to fix our nation than any other action could.
I agree that Hobby Lobby--and any other company, for that matter--should be able
to decide specifically which benefits they offer employees, however, if they do
offer non-standard health insurance, I would hope that they make it clear to the
people they interview before hiring them. I would hate to go work for a company
like that, only to find that what I consider to be basic health insurance is not
covered. (I'm not saying that what Hobby Lobby wants to offer isn't
basic health insurance; I'm just talking hypothetically)At the
same time, I don't know that we want to argue this concept too deeply. I
mean, taking it to an absurd extreme, you could have the Amish all up in arms,
because they can't offer a health plan that doesn't include 21st
Century technology. I realize that's kind of a silly example.Keep in mind, though, that if you want the government to respect your
religious beliefs, it would only be fair for the government to recognize all
religious beliefs, however silly.
I'll be frequenting Hobby Lobby more often. I know it's a drop in the
bucket, but if we all put our money where our beliefs are........?
Every week I find a reason to be glad that our Hobby Lobby and our Chik Fil-A
are in the same strip mall!
To atl134 who said (And yes, a tax cut is a freebie when we have a deficit since
it's being paid for with larger deficits for future generations. If we had
a budget surplus it'd be fine, but we don't).Is a tax cut
a freebie when the result is an increase in federal revenue? That's what
happened with the Kennedy, Reagan and Bush tax cuts. Tax increases will lead to
decreases in revenue when taxes become too great for the economy to bear. So
this idea that we are simply tax paying units and shouldn't ask the
government to take and spend less is wrong. Nobody forced the
government to borrow money. The problem is that no politician wants to say there
is no Santa Claus and not borrow $.42 of every dollar spent.Oh and
Bravo to Hobby Lobby for taking a stand against the statists. We aren't
meant to lay down our guns and surrender our will to the government. We need to
challenge the government and keep its power in check. And hopefully not go broke
in the process.
To Henry Drummond: "I'm always a little nervous when any organization
(does that include the federal government?) decides it is above the law (does
that include the U. S. Constitution?)To Dan O who asked: "So, what
other laws should businesses be allowed to ignore based on the religious
leanings of the owner?" Answer: Any other law that violates the Bill of
Rights in the U. S. Constitution as decided by the United States Supreme Court
from time to time. (They sometimes reverse themselves.)
See, here is the problem with conservatives, KC Mormon, "What we need is to
simply live by the constitution and add some term limits to ALL
politicization."In other words, what we need to do is live by
the Constitution, after we CHANGE the Constitution.The problem with
conservatives? They are clueless.
"I am a father and accept the responsibility to provide for my children. I
have no conflicting opinion with you at all on that topic."Well
David. Lets be sure that we are talking about the same thing.Education costs in Ut are roughly $8000+ per year. Those without children are
paying the same as those without children. Or those with 5 children pay the
same as those with 1 child.Your child tax credit is (i believe)
$3800Medical insurance typically maxes out at "family" which does
not take into account whether the family has 4 or 8 people.So, I am
confident that you are a good dad and that you pay for your kids clothes, food
and braces. But please understand that if you have children, you are getting
plenty of subsidies from others (education being the biggest)
We start down that slippery slope when we try to claim that a person or persons
no longer may decide their own beliefs because they own a business. To the best
of my knowledge, they are not forcing employees to live by their standards, and
neither should they be forced to pay for their employees off-the-clock time
usage. I'm assuming that people don't get pregnant at work, why
should work be forced to cover the expense of 'correcting' the
'problem'?As stated by another participant here. If a
business wishes to attract a certain category of employee by providing health
care and other perks, then, so be it. But every time the government steps in to
force businesses to raise their wages, increase their perks and so forth, some
employees fair better and the others get laid off.We see the true
colors of government here. They preach job creation, while enforcing
unconstitutional edicts and increased regulations which in fact kills jobs.
That is what government is best at.
Joe Blow, you and I can both agree to insert "children" into the
sentence you referenced and we both agree that parents should be responsible for
the nurture, care, safety, etc of those children. I am a father and accept the
responsibility to provide for my children. I have no conflicting opinion with
you at all on that topic.A business owner hires an employee to
perform specific duties for the business. The employee accepts the job if the
compensation is acceptable. The government regulates certain aspects of the
business, including some of the compensation/benefits. However, I do
not believe that government has the right to dictate insurance benefits. That
is between the employer and the employee to negotiate. If the employee
doesn't like the benefits, s/he can look elsewhere for employment. Better
yet, let them start their own business and provide whatever insurance benefit
plan they desire.
I'll bet $10,000 that the CEO and the male employees have Viagra covered by
Hobby Lobby insurance....
The final word in this issue rests with the people. Business operations that
are operated for profit require a business license that is issued by the
government of the people. There are no Constitutional restrictions on the
requirements for the business license. It can specify any conditions regarding
the operation of the business to any extent desired by the people. A business is like an employee of the society. And like other employee
conditions of employee disagreement, the only recourse for the employee is to
not be an employee. Business involve itself in the employees health
for reasons that benefit the business. The Government may not force employers
to provide health insurance but if the business decides to do so they must
follow the rules of doing so. It is important to this nation that
we do not allow religious groups or individuals to extend their rights of
religious freedom into the business world. The is because business operations
are in effect masters over their voluntary slaves, employees. If a church can
use business to enforce it’s religious doctrine, through the economic
power given to business, it takes away the religious freedom of the individual.
I guess I'll have to boycott Hobby Lobby.... I can't support a
corporation that continues the war on women.
It is amazing that people can be so myopic in their views. It is comendable to
hold to our moral and religeous standards, but we don't have the right to
impose our values on someone else that believes differently. As an Independant I
am taught in my faith to obey the law of the land, and having free agency accept
the consequences of my choices. I think that Hobby Lobby has the perfect right
to take their pricipled stand and simply pay the fine which can then pay for the
additionaal insurance coverage should one of their employees choose to have a
different moral position. Just as if someone chooses not to pay for health
insurance they can then pay a tax to help cover the additional burden they
impose on the country's health system and those of us that do pay for
I second Sasha's statement that medical benefits have traditionally not
been required; rather they are a privilege granted to workers from their company
as a part of their overall pay package. Sometimes, unions negotiate the terms of
these benefits, at times to extremes. Nevertheless, there has not been - until
now - a government mandate to provide any health care at all.
"Obamacare," as it is now called, is using the offices of the federal
government to not only force everyone onto some kind of healthcare, but also to
regulate it. Perhaps it would have been better to follow Canada's model of
universal health care for all, paid for by taxes. It may have ended up being
considerably less expensive than Obamacare.
Sasha nailed it!
The very first poster has it right (as does Sasha).I bet I can find
a lot of stuff I can use at Hobby Lobby, and I will shop there regularly to
support people who (a) have moral and religious values; (b) are not embarrassed
to speak of them and especially, (c) are willing to put their money where their
mouth is when their Constitutionally protected freedom of religion is being
crushed under the boot of oppressive government.Note carefully that
their objection is not to "birth control" to prevent conception, but
specifically to the abortion inducing medications REQUIRED to be included
Obamacare policies. They take "Thou shalt not kill" seriously, not only
for school age and older.And, a Chicken sandwich sure does sound
tasty after shopping at Hobby Lobby!
I have no problem with a business or individual offering or not offering any
policy, or limitation on a policy. That is the essence of freedom, and I in
return can excersize my freedom to participate or not with said employer or
individual! Great statement Crow, that is exactly what the last
election was about, buying votes. Apparently AZ thinks it is holy and more moral
to spend money we don't have (deficit spend and debt), verses being allowed
to keep more of you own money. (like that really happens, given the size and
scope of government, and all its different taxes and fees)!
KC Mormon, Please do some real research on the two drugs you mention. Neither
cause abortions. They delay ovulation. That's the problem with Hobby Lobby,
they're letting ideology get in the way of fact and it's going to cost
them in the end.
Kalindra, if I didn't want to adhere to those decisions, I wouldn't
work there.The only control your boss has over you is the amount
that you give to him/her when you freely choose to work for that company.
Otherwise, your boss has zero control over you.We have a God-given,
Constitutionally verified, and logically necessary right to do whatever we want
with our own property (and that includes companies), as long as we do not
violate the only rights that exist: the right to our lives, our liberty, and our
property. (All other legitimate "rights" are merely elements inherent to
those three.)If I'm your employer, and I decide that what I
will offer you in exchange for your time and labor will not include something
(such as the abortion pills in the Hobby Lobby case), I am in NO way violating
your right to your life, liberty, or property. You are always free to reject the
conditions I set for the use of my property (my company) and seek employment
elsewhere.Don't try to enslave and rob me by dictating what I
can do with my property. Take responsibility for yourself.
To those of you who support Hobby Lobby: Would you also support a business
where the owner's religious beliefs held that insurance should only cover
the expenses related to pregnancy, child birth, and family insurance of the
first 3 children - the number required to "replenish the earth" - and
any additional pregnancies, births, and children would not be covered by
insurance and the employee would have to take responsibility for their actions
and pay for it all themselves?Would you support a business
owner's religiously based decision to not insure the second spouse, any
step-children, and all biological children from the second marriage of a
divorced person?Should a business owner be able to prohibit
insurance payments for medical conditions caused by or related to the
consumption or use of products or the participation in activities the business
owner's religion considers a sin?How much control does your
boss get to have over your life by using insurance as a tool to promote his or
her religious beliefs?
This is a fascinating interplay between the rights of business versus the rights
of the individual - similar to the Civil Rights of people who decide to work in
various establishments. Similar to the gun rights issue of businesses having
the right to prohibit guns on their property or the right of individuals to have
them. Such balancing of these rights has been an almost intractable problem for
decades. Making exceptions opens the doors to even greater chaos, disorder, and
David writes "But if contraceptives provide a benefit to society at
large why can't couples be responsible for their own decisions, and pay for
those decisions themselves?"Change contraceptives to children in
the above sentence. Think that would cause David to change his
"How can the government force one person to pay for another person's
birth control?"andHow can the government force one
person to pay for another person's- viagra- child birth-
lung cancer treatment- cirrhosis treatment- blood transfusion- How about if an employer decides that they will only cover 2 children
per family. Can you imagine the Utah outcry on that one?Basically,
the question is this. Do you want business owners or CEO's to
be able to pick and choose what medical treatments or drugs that they will
cover?Be careful what you support. They next company may come after
"Above the law?" Civil disobedience as a protest to unjust laws is the
essence of morality. Laws are an expression of political philosophy and when
they abridge constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, there is an
ethical responsibility to disobey. Look to the Boston tea party, Mohandas
Gandhi, Martin Luther King and many others if you have questions.
Here is the real problem in this Country the Right wants to live by the
Constitution (the document that was written to govern how we ALL use our
freedom) and some on the left as in the case of Louis Michael Seidman, a
Constitutional Law Professor, want us to completely scrap the constitution. He
put this idea out in an op-ed yesterday in the NY-Times. He is not the only one
to suggest this however. In May Sanford Levinson, another leftist Law Professor,
made the same suggestion in the same paper. What we need is to simply live by
the constitution and add some term limits to ALL politicization.
Sasha is exactly correct.
Employers should not be required to provide any health coverage. If they do not
cover pregnancy and child birth, that is their choice. If they do not cover
liver disease, that is their choice. They should not be told who they can or
cannot hire. If somebody chooses to start a business he must not be forced to
act as a government welfare agent. He can provide benefits for his employees to
attract skilled workers, but should not be forced to do so. This should be
beyond obvious. Unfortunately we have grown to be so dependent that we are not
able to see that anymore.
RynnHobby Lobby has said they have NO problem with standard BIRTH CONTROL
what they are refusing to provide are the MORNING AFTER and WEEK AFTER pills.
These have just one purpose to abort an egg that has been fertilized. That is
what is against their religion and that is what they are being FORCED to pay for
against their will.
What has happened to freedom in this country? How can the government force one
person to pay for another person's birth control? A dictatorship is being
born in America and it is the aristocracy of the White House! Time for another
@The CrowSays someone who voted for a guy who offered you a 20% tax cut.
Yeah you totally weren't looking for freebies.(And yes, a tax
cut is a freebie when we have a deficit since it's being paid for with
larger deficits for future generations. If we had a budget surplus it'd be
fine, but we don't).
I think the major objection of the Hobby Lobby owners is aimed at the
contraceptives that induce abortion, destroy a fertilized egg. They are against
participating in any form of abortion.
Birth control pills can also be used to avoid illness. Seven years ago I ended
up in the emergency room for what turned out to be a ruptured ovarian cyst. I
then needed surgery, which is when the doctors diagnosed me with endometriosis.
I was put on birth control pills because they prevent the advancement of
endometriosis/cysts. My point is that not every woman who takes birth
control medicationis doing it for "recreational reasons".
Two courts have already ruled against Hobby Lobby. Both Judge Joe Heaton, a Bush
appointee and the 10th Circuit Appeals court. Not exactly liberal judges in any
case. They are gambling at this point, which last I checked was also considered
morally wrong.As far as as drinking analogy, it's flawed since health
insurance generally covers liver disease as a result of drinking.
David, fine. Let everyone be responsible then. Why have insurance cover the
costs of pregnancy and child birth? It's certainly more expensive than
contraceptives. Challenging the law is a foolish move. They're not a
religion. They're a business, and as such they're operate under
DanO, Hobby Lobby is simply challenging the law in court, which is their right.
Our national history is filled with such instances of conflict between parties
and the government, and in many instances the government loses. You
frame the conflict as Hobby Lobby ignoring law. They are not ignoring law.
They are challenging what they, and I, consider to be an unconstitutional law.
They are stating that they will not pay a fine when the conflict is yet to be
resolved in court. The issue has not been resolved until the Supreme Court
rules upon the law, or until the challenging party (in this case, Hobby Lobby)
quits their challenge.Liberals are offended when the law fails their
efforts to force their agenda.
Hobby Lobby protests government law which requires that employers and
corporations provide contraceptive coverage within insurance policies provided
to employees. These insurance policies are also required by law. Hobby Lobby
executives object to this law on the grounds that the law violates their
exercise of their religion.Contraceptives are used by couples to
avoid unwanted pregnancies and some forms of contraceptives also safeguard
against STDs. It could be argued that contraceptives benefit society at large,
thus the law is just and Hobby Lobby executives may not be free to worship
according to the dictates of their conscience.But if contraceptives
provide a benefit to society at large why can't couples be responsible for
their own decisions, and pay for those decisions themselves? Why must an
executive be forced, against his conscience, to provide contraceptives for
someone that chooses a sexual relationship that is a choice between consenting
adults but the relationship does not involve the executive at all? If an employee chooses to drink alcohol, must an executive be required to
provide taxi fare to minimize the risk of DUI harm? It is the employees
choice exercised here. Why must the burden be upon the executive, against his
So, what other laws should businesses be allowed to ignore based on the
religious leanings of the owner?
@ Henry Drummond,I'm sure they don't think they are above the
law, they are just making a moral stand against totalitarianism and I applaud
them in their efforts. This country is no longer free when people can't
make a stand such as this.
Anyone who decides that they will obey God rather than a corrupt government
trying to impose unbiblical regulations upon them is not "above the
law;" rather, they are obeying a Higher Law. More power to them. It was
moments of civil disobedience like this which have been catalysts for all the
great forward-moving actions in this nation, including the civil rights
movement. Indeed, this nation would never had come into existence if not for
just such acts against an unrighteous government.
Henry, you are talking about the government trying to be above the law right???
By imposing a required health care plan that defies religious beliefs or
requires citizens to do something it does not require the rest of the government
to follow or obey? Right?
Henry,I'm more worried about people like you who can have their
vote bought by a government promising everything for free.
They are taking a principled stand which, given the continuing degeneration of
our society, it particularly courageous.I ardently hope they succeed
and wish them the best of luck.
This could get very interesting.
I'm always a little nervous when any organization decides it is above the
I'm ready to go shopping at Hobby Lobby and 'Eat more chiken'!I guess our great nation is going to have to be brought to its knees by
this administration but I'm not giving up on it... just the idiots in
Washington.Getting a gun, learning how to hunt and buying more food
storage are on my list this New Year as well as losing a few pounds and getting
out of debt.