Hobby Lobby

[poolerboy0077]

A drop in the bucket, considering how much they make from another tyrannical anti-Christian government.

Maybe they're just against American abortions?

Corporations aren't just people. They're also misinformed/hypocritical people. That's their God-given right!

 

[Resha Caner]

You'd be proposing an untenable "solution" to the problem. People don't (and shouldn't) get to vote out of paying taxes or the like on the basis of having some moral qualms. We live in a first-world republic, not a libertarian's anarchistic wet dream.

No need for the language, but I'm agreeing with you. It would be anarchy. That's the end I've always expected of pluralism. Not that I like it, but that's the way it is.

Are you saying that the current administration isn't pushing it's ideas? That it doesn't hope to achieve enforcement of the issue over the protests of people such as myself?

Are you saying I should remain silent? I shouldn't petition my representative with my position on issues and ask him to vote for my preferences? I should never protest?

I realize people like to put "democracy" on a pedestal, but the truth is that when a vote is taken, there is always a side that loses. I've done nothing illegal (unless there is an intent to make expressing an opinion illegal), so I don't understand why you think that means I should give up.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Corporations aren't just people. They're also misinformed/hypocritical people. That's their God-given right!

In all fairness, they could just be people who are very selective in their religious beliefs.

For example, it may be against their religion to spend money on abortion, but not to make money on it.

They certainly wouldn't be the first "person" to suspend their morals at the almighty bottom line.

 

[wing2000]

I am incredibly uncomfortable with the idea that a business can choose a religion, as if the entity itself is therefore religious.

I also have a problem with employers being able to pick and choose precisely what worker compensation can and cannot cover. It is none of the employer's business what an employee spends their money on. Why should it be an employer's business to determine what kind of drugs are covered by their health insurance compensation?

Further, if a company can have a religion as would be suggested by a positive ruling by the Supreme Court, what's to stop companies from converting to Seventh Day Adventists and thus deny their employees the right to form a union based on Seventh Day dogma? Or what if they convert to Christian Scientists and get rid of insurance as a form of compensation altogether?

Good questions.

 

[Resha Caner]

A drop in the bucket, considering how much they make from another tyrannical anti-Christian government.

In your latest post you seemed to be backing off this a bit ... unless it was just another bit of sarcasm. Regardless, this is an ad hominem. No one here has claimed Hobby Lobby is comprised of sinless people. There is no such thing - no perfect business (or do you think you know of one?) This has nothing to do with the point being debated. It would be ridiculous to claim that Hobby Lobby can't advocate for their view because they're imperfect.

 

[poolerboy0077]

No need for the language, but I'm agreeing with you. It would be anarchy. That's the end I've always expected of pluralism. Not that I like it, but that's the way it is.

Are you saying that the current administration isn't pushing it's ideas? That it doesn't hope to achieve enforcement of the issue over the protests of people such as myself?

Are you saying I should remain silent? I shouldn't petition my representative with my position on issues and ask him to vote for my preferences? I should never protest?

I realize people like to put "democracy" on a pedestal, but the truth is that when a vote is taken, there is always a side that loses. I've done nothing illegal (unless there is an intent to make expressing an opinion illegal), so I don't understand why you think that means I should give up.

I'm not understanding what your objection is, really. You are free to complain about this all you want. My point was that if Hobby Lobby or any other company does not want to provide something because they feel it violates their religious conscience, they have the option of simply paying a taxes that is imposed on everyone in which the federal government can then supply it to said employees. This discussion isn't about whether we should or should not pay taxes or whether we should revamp the government entirely to never have any connection, however indirect, to other people. This is about, given the system we have, where do we draw the line. On the one hand, if we allow a religious free-for all with respect to accommodation, this opens the floodgates to all kinds of piecemeal exemptions and subsidized privileges (e.g., inmates who saw wine accommodations for Catholic Eucharist claim their religion entitles them to steak and wine). On the other hand, paying no heed to religious sensibilities when we have a provision of religious freedom codified in the Constitution is also untenable. So it's like that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? Yes. Would you sleep with me for a dollar? No. Okay, well, we've already established what you are. Now we're just negotiating price. The price negotiation here is the demarcation we put in place. That's why the courts are juggling with different tests like "substantial burden" or "compelling State interest" or "least restrictive alternative."

 

[AceHero]

Hobby Lobby doesn't want to prevent surgeries that may result in infertility. They merely don't want to pay for four drugs that they deem are pregnancy-ending drugs. Let's face it - especially with the morning-after pill - these drugs aren't used as life-saving drugs.

The methods that Hobby Lobby oppose do not terminate pregnancies. They prevent them from happening in the first place.

They are asking for exemption of 4 types of birth control out of 20. They don't have an issue with the other 16. It sounds like you don't realize what the case is about. Your other two points have nothing to do with this, and I'm not even going to go there.

And what if a woman's body is more in agreement with one of the forbidden four?

But they DO offer birth control, most of which can be used for purposes other than birth control. The four they don't want to offer are not generally used for purposes other than birth control.

They do have uses other than preventing pregnancy.

 

[TLK Valentine]

In your latest post you seemed to be backing off this a bit ... unless it was just another bit of sarcasm. Regardless, this is an ad hominem.

Actually, it's called a fact.

93% of Hobby Lobby's inventory comes from China -- fact.
China has had 336 million abortions in the last 30 years -- fact.
By way of comparison, the US has had an estimated 50 million abortions since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 -- fact.

It can easily be inferred that Hobby Lobby is every bit as aware of these facts as you or I. What have they chosen to do about it?

Nothing -- and that's a fact.

No one here has claimed Hobby Lobby is comprised of sinless people. There is no such thing - no perfect business (or do you think you know of one?)

I claim no such thing, either -- what I do claim is that Hobby Lobby has not let their religious conscience stand in the way of profit -- only in the way of expense.

And I wouldn't expect them or any other company to do so.

This has nothing to do with the point being debated. It would be ridiculous to claim that Hobby Lobby can't advocate for their view because they're imperfect.

And what exactly is their view, in light of their actions?

The fact is that Hobby Lobby willingly profits from a nation which has performed roughly six times as many abortions in the last thirty years as the United States -- and we may never know how many of those abortions were performed on unwilling patients.

This is not an "imperfection"; it's a business decision.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm unsure what side the court is going to come down on this one, but it is going to be interesting.

With that said, I don't have a big issue with Hobby Lobby refusing to pay for these things with this caveat; I believe companies should be compelled to notify employees and the general public, what their stance is on these matters, so people are rightfully notified.

In those cases I think it is also reasonable for customers to have the same right to ignore the law, just so long as they let the business know before hand. It would be fine to steal products from those companies or set the store on fire, just so long as the customers let the company know before hand.

Hey, if we're going to allow people to pick and choose what laws they follow, might as well be consistent about it. Limiting that privileged only to certain religious beliefs would be a violation of the establishment clause.

Being able to get a religious exemption to stealing laws may sound outrageous. When's the last time you've seen anyone post a Bible verse saying that Jesus requires believers to limit the health care choices of their employees as Hobby Lobby is claiming here?

PS - Ask me about my ideas for a government run database of the religious views of every executive in America. If we're allowing the religious views of individuals in any company to trump the law, it is only fair to make those views known. And have a process in place for those executives to initially register their views [including a modest processing fee] and time to give fair warning that they are changing their religious affiliation as well - say a 1 or 2 year cooling off period and to allow for public comment and debate. Seems like a reasonable concession to get to ignore labor law on a whim.

 

[Resha Caner]

I'm not understanding what your objection is, really. You are free to complain about this all you want. My point was that if Hobby Lobby or any other company does not want to provide something because they feel it violates their religious conscience, they have the option of simply paying a taxes that is imposed on everyone in which the federal government can then supply it to said employees. This discussion isn't about whether we should or should not pay taxes or whether we should revamp the government entirely to never have any connection, however indirect, to other people. This is about, given the system we have, where do we draw the line. On the one hand, if we allow a religious free-for all with respect to accommodation, this opens the floodgates to all kinds of piecemeal exemptions and subsidized privileges (e.g., inmates who saw wine accommodations for Catholic Eucharist claim their religion entitles them to steak and wine). On the other hand, paying no heed to religious sensibilities when we have a provision of religious freedom codified in the Constitution is also untenable. So it's like that old joke: Would you sleep with me for a million dollars? Yes. Would you sleep with me for a dollar? No. Okay, well, we've already established what you are. Now we're just negotiating price. The price negotiation here is the demarcation we put in place. That's why the courts are juggling with different tests like "substantial burden" or "compelling State interest" or "least restrictive alternative."

I don't understand why you think I would find a tax to be OK. The objection isn't about paying taxes or paying for health care. It's not about burden or alternatives. It's about being required to pay for something objectionable. You admitted that paying the tax is just an indirect way of paying for these services. So, in the end, Hobby Lobby (and me for that matter) would still be financially supporting something they object to. That is not an acceptable solution, and it never will be.

One has to draw the line somewhere. If I'm required to pay a tax for a new playground and I'd rather spend the money to repair streets ... that's something I'm willing to compromise on. It's something where I can accept losing the vote because playgrounds are nice things too.

But if my taxes are subsidizing something I consider murder, that will never be acceptable.

 

[Resha Caner]

In those cases I think it is also reasonable for customers to have the same right to ignore the law, just so long as they let the business know before hand. It would be fine to steal products from those companies or set the store on fire, just so long as the customers let the company know before hand.

OK, you've got a good point there. I guess that idea wouldn't work.

 

[KCfromNC]

And how would anyone know that was the reason? Ultrasounds are an important part of pregnancy and maternity health for all expectant mothers. How would it be determined that an ultrasound should not be provided? How can they determine the necessity of treatment without performing the ultrasound to determine the necessity of treatment? And what if the ultrasound convinces a pregnant woman to to have an abortion? You'd still say that shouldn't be provided?

Seems perfectly reasonable to involve your boss, or his, or his on up the chain in a medical decision about the viability of a risky pregnancy. Certainly having the help of a bureaucracy like that full of middle managers with no medical training the in least must be the best way to guarantee a high level of care for both the mother and baby. It'll be even better when each of those managers has to go to their priest or pastor to discuss the details of whether or not it would be a violation of their religious beliefs to allow or deny coverage for various bits of the process. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[KCfromNC]

Should they be subject to the economic whims of their employer when it comes to their physical well-being?

No. For example, "I didn't want to pay for it" isn't going to get you very far if there are obvious safety problems in the workplace. Neither is "my religion says that god is in control so there's no reason for fire extinguishers". I'm sure to some that's a horrible violation of their religious beliefs. But guess what - having religious beliefs doesn't make you above the law.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't understand why you think I would find a tax to be OK. The objection isn't about paying taxes or paying for health care. It's not about burden or alternatives. It's about being required to pay for something objectionable.

Hobby Lobby already chooses to pay for something objectionable when they financially support China's abortion policy.

You admitted that paying the tax is just an indirect way of paying for these services. So, in the end, Hobby Lobby (and me for that matter) would still be financially supporting something they object to. That is not an acceptable solution, and it never will be.

Except that Hobby Lobby is already doing so -- the only difference is that they make a profit off it.

One has to draw the line somewhere.

It would appear that the line is drawn either at the US border or in the Hobby Lobby ledgers.

But if my taxes are subsidizing something I consider murder, that will never be acceptable.

Do you accept capital punishment and/or war?

 

[Resha Caner]

Actually, it's called a fact.

You need to check the definition of an ad hominem (though maybe it would be better to call this a red herring). Those fallacies involve changing the debate by substituting some other issue - by attacking someone's character instead of addressing the issue, or by replacing one issue for another.

You've substituted a discussion on Hobby Lobby's business relationship with China for the thread topic - Hobby Lobby's case before the Supreme Court.

China is a much bigger issue than Hobby Lobby alone. It would be hard to find a major company in the U.S. that isn't involved with China. That's not an excuse, but if you're suggesting an immediate exit from all business with China, that's not a tenable idea. I doubt you'd really be willing to endure the chaos and hyper-inflation that would cause. So, let me ask you this: Has Hobby Lobby stated a postion on China? Have you or anyone else asked them about it? If they've said they're not going to do anything, I would agree that is bad. If they are doing something, I would expect their strategy would have to be a long-term one. The world won't be fixed in a day.

 

[Resha Caner]

Do you accept capital punishment and/or war?

Not that such things can't be wrong, but in general yes. The word I used was "murder", not "killing". Are you a vegetarian?

 

[TLK Valentine]

You need to check the definition of an ad hominem (though maybe it would be better to call this a red herring). Those fallacies involve changing the debate by substituting some other issue - by attacking someone's character instead of addressing the issue, or by replacing one issue for another.

The issue is Hobby Lobby's alleged objection to supporting abortion -- that they are willingly in bed (so to speak) with a far larger abortion mill than the U.S. is very much on point.

You've substituted a discussion on Hobby Lobby's business relationship with China for the thread topic - Hobby Lobby's case before the Supreme Court.

The basis for Hobby Lobby's case before SCOTUS is their alleged religious objection -- their actions show that basis is specious at best.

In order for a court to grant a religious exemption, the Supreme Court would have to believe that Hobby Lobby is basing their objection on a sincerely held religious belief. Unless they account for their dealings with China, Hobby Lobby may find it difficult to convince the court -- more difficult to convince the court of public opinion.

China is a much bigger issue than Hobby Lobby alone. It would be hard to find a major company in the U.S. that isn't involved with China.

That would be known as a tu quoque fallacy. No matter who is committing an immoral act, it is still immoral. In any case, most major companies aren't pleading a religious case before the Supreme Court.

Now, it may be that the people of Hobby Lobby don't consider China's actions immoral -- or that they do, but find the profit that they make from being involved with them assuages their conscience.

It would seem, therefore, that their religious convictions are... negotiable. Nothing wrong with that; just be honest about it.

That's not an excuse, but if you're suggesting an immediate exit from all business with China, that's not a tenable idea.

I'm not suggesting it, but if Hobby Lobby wants to maintain that their religious objection is sincere, it would be a good move on their part.

Or, if their convictions are negotiable, they should be up front about that -- it could be that they consider American abortions to be immoral, but not Chinese ones. Or, as I said earlier, they may only object to spending money to support abortion, not to making money to do so.

Whichever the case may be, it would probably be in Hobby Lobby's best interest to clarify this in their arguments to the Supreme Court, lest their "religious conscience" argument be seen as something less than sincere.

I doubt you'd really be willing to endure the chaos and hyper-inflation that would cause.

1: It wouldn't affect me in the slightest; I don't shop at Hobby Lobby.

2: Matthew 16:26 For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

IOW, if I held such sincere religious beliefs, I wouldn't sell them out -- would you?

So, let me ask you this: Has Hobby Lobby stated a postion on China? Have you or anyone else asked them about it?

Actions speak louder than words -- given 93% of Hobby Lobby's actions, what words would excuse them?

If they've said they're not going to do anything, I would agree that is bad. If they are doing something, I would expect their strategy would have to be a long-term one. The world won't be fixed in a day.

Hobby Lobby's been doing business with China for quite some time -- long before they ever claimed any sort of religious objections to anything. They've said nothing; they've done nothing.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[Resha Caner]

Seems perfectly reasonable to involve your boss, or his, or his on up the chain in a medical decision about the viability of a risky pregnancy. Certainly having the help of a bureaucracy like that full of middle managers with no medical training the in least must be the best way to guarantee a high level of care for both the mother and baby. It'll be even better when each of those managers has to go to their priest or pastor to discuss the details of whether or not it would be a violation of their religious beliefs to allow or deny coverage for various bits of the process. What could possibly go wrong?

Is it scary that we would agree on something? This would be bad. It's not something I want. But it is what pluralism drives - micromanagement and loss of privacy. Since pluralism means a broad spectrum of views, much disagreement results, and so we're driven to negotiating how to handle every situation, line by line.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is it scary that we would agree on something? This would be bad. It's not something I want. But it is what pluralism drives - micromanagement and loss of privacy. Since pluralism means a broad spectrum of views, much disagreement results, and so we're driven to negotiating how to handle every situation, line by line.

Which is exactly what a successful ruling in Hobby Lobby's favor would lead to.

If you can have a religious objection to abortion that exempts you, then what can't you object to?

ETA: Special thanks to stamperben for the pic:

 

[Resha Caner]

Which is exactly what a successful ruling in Hobby Lobby's favor would lead to.

Yeah, I get that. Neither of us wants that result, but the solution you would offer is not acceptable to me, and the solution I would offer is not acceptable to you. So, we get what we get.