Hobby Lobby business practices

[Bunty]

Only those that make money off business dealings in China are hypocrite eligible in this type of situation

How very true.

[mkjeeves]

But they aren't controlling their employees' money, only controlling what they are offering to pay for. Thy aren't saying that the employee is barred from purchasing the drug themselves. In the context of the point i was making with this post (that the company isn't responsible for what the Chinese use their money for), perhaps instead of "control", a better term would be "bear responsibility for".

The Greens aren't responsible for what the law requires them to do. It is not voluntary. Manufacturing goods in China and selling goods from China are.

[CaptDave]

I find it interesting that Hobby Lobby is basing their position solely on religious conviction, but are conveniently forgetting about the "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" part of the Bible. I think this is a fair question especially when you consider it in the manner in which mkjeeves stated it above.

[Dubya61]

They are not refusing to pay the fine. They are not failing to abide by the "this or that" nature of PPACA. I suspect they are hoping to use the fines as proof that abiding by the law AND their moral compass is ruining their bottom line.

[PennyQuilts]

I find it interesting that Hobby Lobby is basing their position solely on religious conviction, but are conveniently forgetting about the "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's" part of the Bible. I think this is a fair question especially when you consider it in the manner in which mkjeeves stated it above.

Taxes for revenue are one thing. Directly paying for something they find morally offensive is completely different. Render until Caesar was about paying a tax - about revenue. The government is demanding private citizens personally fund a social policy that violates their religious/moral beliefs. Completely different. No one would expect rendering under Caesar to include engaging in behavior that was morally offensive. If they could do that, they could require them to get abortions, cheat on their spouses, eat meat when they are devout vegetarians, smoke, etc.

[PennyQuilts]

Only those that make money off business dealings in China are hypocrite eligible in this type of situation

Consumers would be just as guilty. Who makes iphones, ipads and things like that?

[PennyQuilts]

The Greens aren't responsible for what the law requires them to do. It is not voluntary. Manufacturing goods in China and selling goods from China are.

Not true. They have the option of not paying for it or refusing to provide it - and take the consequences that come with it. Claiming they have to violate their conscience because they have no choice is morally bankrupt. They can go bankrupt, also. That is the situation they will find themself if the court or Congress (or Obama) doesn't do the right thing.

Dumb law, asking for this sort of problem. Let's see how it gets resolved. At this point, the left is simply demonizing HL because it is all they have. They have absolutely no moral highground to demand a company violate its core values so that people don't have to buy their own cheap medications. The government has painted itself into a corner and the faster they resolve this and move on down the road, the better. They just don't know how to do it without losing face. This is not what this country is about and in a moment of honesty, we all know that. This is just tyranny. Nothing is more sacred that our freedom of conscience and they are demanding HL violate theirs to advance something that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This isn't chemo, for god's sake. Thing is, they have already had the funding for Obamacare gutted in material ways. It needs to just fold up and keep the few provisions that everyone would have agreed to in the first place without all the drama and diversion it created when the country was sinking into the deep recession.

[Bunty]

Not true. They have the option of not paying for it or refusing to provide it - and take the consequences that come with it. Claiming they have to violate their conscience because they have no choice is morally bankrupt. They can go bankrupt, also. That is the situation they will find themself if the court or Congress (or Obama) doesn't do the right thing.

Dumb law, asking for this sort of problem. Let's see how it gets resolved. At this point, the left is simply demonizing HL because it is all they have. They have absolutely no moral highground to demand a company violate its core values so that people don't have to buy their own cheap medications. The government has painted itself into a corner and the faster they resolve this and move on down the road, the better. They just don't know how to do it without losing face. This is not what this country is about and in a moment of honesty, we all know that. This is just tyranny. Nothing is more sacred that our freedom of conscience and they are demanding HL violate theirs to advance something that doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This isn't chemo, for god's sake. Thing is, they have already had the funding for Obamacare gutted in material ways. It needs to just fold up and keep the few provisions that everyone would have agreed to in the first place without all the drama and diversion it created when the country was sinking into the deep recession.

So should it come up in the news, can we trust you to back a CEO of the Jehovah's Witness religion that he should not have to be associated with insurance that pays for blood transfusions, because doing that is against his religious convictions? Surely a transfusion is more expensive, but I assume that matters not to conservatives.

[Easy180]

Consumers would be just as guilty. Who makes iphones, ipads and things like that?

I lose money in that transaction not make it

[CaptDave]

Taxes for revenue are one thing. Directly paying for something they find morally offensive is completely different. Render until Caesar was about paying a tax - about revenue. The government is demanding private citizens personally fund a social policy that violates their religious/moral beliefs. Completely different. No one would expect rendering under Caesar to include engaging in behavior that was morally offensive. If they could do that, they could require them to get abortions, cheat on their spouses, eat meat when they are devout vegetarians, smoke, etc.

This is a prime example of the circular nature of this entire discussion. Everyone who follows the law and pays whatever is legally required of them in some way inevitably supports something they have objections to. We simply do not have the right to selectively reduce the amount they pay or which laws they will follow. Are pacifiata permitted to erduce their tax payments by the portion of the federal budget that goes toward the Department of Defense? I could almost buy the premise of Hobby Lobby accepting the consequences of their actions by paying the fine if they weren't actively marketing themselves as martyrs knowing there is a huge segment of the population that will find a way to assist them in their righteous fight against the evil government. I don't think the Green family are "bad" people or Hobby Lobby is a "bad" company, but the way they have gone about this has a slight hint of hypocrisy.

[RadicalModerate]

Sort of like when Henry David T. went to jail for his beliefs regarding some form of taxation and Ralph Waldo E. went to visit him and said, "Henry! What are you doing in here?" to which Henry replied, "What are you NOT doing in here, Ralph?" But that was back when America was still a free country and all . . . (plus it was a paraphrase and I'm not sure how to spell Therou or Emmerssson)

I guess Hank was indirectly accusing Ralph of being a hypocrite, yet Ralph could have said, "Whatdaya mean, 'not in here'? Do I look like I'm outside? You spent way too much time hanging around that friggin' pond . . ." I'd bet that there is a book somewhere on the shelves at HobbyMardel that deals more accurately with this issue. If the Government winds up seizing their assets to satifiy The Fine do you suppose they will be able to figure out a solution to the conundrum of what to do with all of the seditious literature? Can't burn 'em . . . The Carbon Footprint Tax would probably offset any net gains.

And isn't it interesting that, when you get right down to it, this entire "political dilemma" comes down to pairs of individual "homo sapiens" not knowing how or when to keep certain body parts wet or dry.... dang.

[mkjeeves]

Not true. They have the option of not paying for it or refusing to provide it - and take the consequences that come with it. Claiming they have to violate their conscience because they have no choice is morally bankrupt. They can go bankrupt, also. That is the situation they will find themself if the court or Congress (or Obama) doesn't do the right thing.

Once again, you are arguing against what wasn't said. Madmonk was talking about what they "offered" to pay for as if they had an option to pick and chose between coverages. They don't have that option. The choices within minimum coverage are not voluntary. The government has mandated what they have to provide at a minimum if they want to be an employer in America and not pay the tax instead. Yes, everyone has options....comply, leave the country, get out of business, vote to change the law, fight the law in court, and/or be a voluntary lawbreaker and suffer the consequences. They have lots of freedom to do many things. Picking what to be "responsible" for WRT their employees minimum coverage is not on the table. That is not their responsibility as an employer to decide, it is mandated if they are going to be in business and provide coverage.

My understanding is they have decided to both fight the law in court AND be lawbreakers. It remains to be seen how well they will accept suffering the consequences.

[RadicalModerate]

"To Tell The Truth" . . . For The Post-Mayan (calendar fail) Apocolypse . . . or whutever)

I Am A LawBreaker/Fighter


I Am A LawBreaker/Fighter


I Am A LawBreaker/Fighter


Don't Forget About Me . . . (or my motives, including something involving money, including indians the french and stuff) . . .
[Internet Link to Portrait of George Washington on a Stamp, Blocked]

"Will the REAL 'LawBreaker' Please Stand Up . . ."

(so ml/mr "jeeves" . . . is the pantry in acceptable condition . . . ? and quilts properly fluffed, paradigm-wise? or not? =)
(please re-direct your attention to the very first post on this topic--Post #1--and reconsider accordingly. thank you)
(if i'm not mistaken . . . it preceeded/contemporaryized . . . that Aubrey Deal over at Chesapeake . . .)

Hint: Mr. Green is a good guy . . . even if he is "rich" . . .
Note the positive influence of "Hobby Lobby" on the local economy and extended concern for the employees within his care.
or don't. your choice.

[mkjeeves]

[CaptDave]

Smh RadMod..... again.

[mkjeeves]

"To Tell The Truth"

I Am A LawBreaker/Fighter

I notice Bill Ayers didn't make your short list.

I'm curious, who do you think has more appreciation for civil disobedience, President Obama or Mr. Green?

The left or the right?

The supporters of Hobby Lobby, Inc. or the detractors?

[PennyQuilts]

I notice Bill Ayers didn't make your short list.

I'm curious, who do you think has more appreciation for civil disobedience, President Obama or Mr. Green?

The left or the right?

The supporters of Hobby Lobby, Inc. or the detractors?

If you knew your history, you'd know that the GOP was the party of civil rights. They had to drag the democrats along kicking and screaming. Abolitionists ring a bell?

No question, the right is much more for civil disobedience than the left. The left have turned into lapdogs. Their finest hour was during the Vietnam war protests but they lost their soul since then. IMO.

[Bunty]

If you knew your history, you'd know that the GOP was the party of civil rights. They had to drag the democrats along kicking and screaming. Abolitionists ring a bell?

Then what happened? Around 90% of the blacks voted for Obama. I guess they found Gov. George Wallace not too hard to forgive.

[mkjeeves]

The question is about civil disobedience, law breaking.

Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is commonly, though not always,defined as being nonviolent resistance.
Wikipedia

Some examples being, refusing to comply with Obamacare, gun law breaking, refusing to pay taxes, refusing to obey drug laws, gay right protest law breaking and anti gay law breaking, environmental protest crimes, anti-abortion crimes, illegal camping occupiers, anti-middle east war protest crimes, and animal activist crimes come to mind in addition to the more historical events that may have contributed to changing our society in the past.

[Bunty]

No question, the right is much more for civil disobedience than the left. The left have turned into lapdogs.

Yeah, like in this recent odd court case story: Man gets 30 days in jail for contempt of court » Local News » Stillwater NewsPress

[kelroy55]

Then what happened? Around 90% of the blacks voted for Obama. I guess they found Gov. George Wallace not too hard to forgive.

Must have been that thing he did blocking the doors to a public school to keep out the blacks. Guess he forgot he was the party of civil rights.

[RadicalModerate]

Wasn't George Wallace a Democrat? I think he was. At least back then.
And I think it was Orville Faubus (D. Arkansas) who stood in the schoolhouse door . . .
And Lester Maddox (D. Georgia) who wanted to arm everyone with axe handles . . . Well . . . not everyone.

[mkjeeves]

I wonder if the supporters of Mr. Green's lawbreaking support this lawbreaking too. Lets assume all participants are "committed" to their beliefs.

NACOGDOCHES, Texas, November 19, 2012 (ENS) – Twelve people were arrested in east Texas today as they blockaded construction of TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. The protesters warn that burning the heavy fossil fuel will emit large amounts of greenhouse gases, warming the planet beyond repair.

Four people locked themselves to heavy machinery used to prepare the route for the pipeline that is planned to carry heavy tarry material called bitumen, diluted with a solvent, from the tar sands of northern Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.
tar sands blockaders

Blockaders locked themselves to heavy equipment to interfere with construction of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, November 19, 2012 (Photo courtesy Tar Sands Blockade)

While the trans-border section of the pipeline needs a permit from President Barack Obama, sections of the pipeline within the United States do not.

Those locked to the heavy machinery were joined by several others forming a human chain to block the movement of the machinery, while more than 30 people walked onto the same construction site to halt work early this morning.

Meanwhile, three other protesters put up a new tree blockade at a crossing of the Angelina River, suspending themselves from 50 foot pine trees with life lines anchored to heavy machinery, effectively blocking the entirety of Keystone XL’s path.

Tar Sands Blockade is a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and climate justice organizers using peaceful and sustained civil disobedience to stop the construction of TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Organizers of today’s Tar Sands Blockade Day of Action say they are acting in solidarity with local landowners struggling to protect their water and land from pipeline spills.

Twelve Arrested in Texas Keystone XL Pipeline Blockade | Environment News Service

[PennyQuilts]

Must have been that thing he did blocking the doors to a public school to keep out the blacks. Guess he forgot he was the party of civil rights.

Wow. Some of the liberals seem to be out in force to protect and maintain the status quo and law and order, regardless of whether it is a moral law or it isn't. The government is KING. That is just such a fascist attitude, guy. Law divorced from morality is evil, IMO. We can disagree on certain things but to force people to violate their moral principals is the opposite of what the liberals have laid claim to for nearly my whole life. They were the longterm party of bigotry, status quo, racism and sexism and it wasn't until the sixties that they started turning it around and reinventing themselves. Many were segregationists and they tried to keep the civil rights bill bottled up in committee so it wouldn't come to the floor - the republicans were the ones who saved that law. The liberals spent the past few decades doing everything they can to throw off that shameful history and try to paint everyone else with their own guilty conscience. They've got politicians, even today, who were high members of the ku klux klan. You won't find that in the GOP. The liberal generations that have followed the civil rights era seem to have gone back to their roots and honestly don't seem to have the slightest understanding or inkling that the democrats were the segregationists who fought the civil rights movement. By your arguments, i.e., that you have to follow the law even if you think it is immoral, you would be defending Jim Crow, for heaven sake.

I think the stars for abolitionists, the sit in protestors during the Vietnam war (as I've said, the glory days of the democrats before they sold their souls), the Freedom Riders, the refusal to sit at the back of the bus.

[PennyQuilts]

George Wallace, democrat, 1963 while being sworn in as governor after a landslide victory:

In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever.