Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.

Just saying...

No there's not.

Just saying...

Yes there is. Its being forced to violate your beliefs.

Why is it against the word of God to provide health insurance for company staff?

Not health insurance, just abortion and birth control(and only certain Birth Control)

They are still providing Health Insurance that isn't funding those things.

I suppose they will have to enjoy their martyrdom, or sell up the business and move to Zimbabwe or somewhere that doesn't allow abortion.

 Alfndrate wrote:


I thought the ACA forced employers with more than 50 employees to offer insurance to their employees... As it has been pointed out, Hobby Lobby has 13,000 employees nationwide.

By "forced" meaning that they'll incur a fine, yes that's true.

However, if they chose NOT to offer a plan, they'll have to pay a fine to the IRS per employee (I think it's $1700/per). The fine is cheaper than actually providing their own plan... but I'd say it's interesting in that they're choosing to fight this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I suppose they will have to enjoy their martyrdom, or sell up the business and move to Zimbabwe or somewhere that doesn't allow abortion.

It's really all about perspective.

If a Christian company is providing Health Insurance for their employees... they have to manage it and they're given a choice as to what to cover. Therefore, they're free to offer whichever benefits for their employees that fits their religious beliefs. Anyone working for Hobby Lobby would know this and if they object to this, they're free to look for employment elsewhere.

Contrast this to the Canadian or UK model... the state manage the plan and thus, religious institutions are more insulated from this because they pay taxes to a general state fund.

See?

The Company is NOT Christian, the owners are. A Company is not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. it is only a legal mask and has no inherent belief system to protect or support.

 Easy E wrote:
The Company is NOT Christian, the owners are. A Company is not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. it is only a legal mask and has no inherent belief system to protect or support.

??

So, the owners don't have rights to run their own company?

 whembly wrote:

 Easy E wrote:
The Company is NOT Christian, the owners are. A Company is not Christian, Jewish, Hindu, etc. it is only a legal mask and has no inherent belief system to protect or support.

??

So, the owners don't have rights to run their own company?

Nope, they work in an At-Will state, and as such can be terminated by themselves at any moment without reason

I have one point to make, one major point:

What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?

Surely, it's human nature to stop suffering?

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
I have one point to make, one major point:

What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?

All those are major points points brought up by pro-choice advocates. MAny are countered by "You can always put the child up for adoption"

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
I have one point to make, one major point:

What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?

They usually come out with some pious nonsense about protecting life instead of dealing with the practicalities of these situation and the harm done to people living through the stress of it. There's a common contradiction with right wing pro-lifers in particular, they fight for the rights of the unborn to 'protect life' but are opposed to a lot of social and health care that protect the ongoing welfare of those already born.

 Grey Templar wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

whembly wrote:
There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.

Just saying...

No there's not.

Just saying...

Yes there is. Its being forced to violate your beliefs.

Well where do you draw the line with this? The state decides what comes under healthcare, individual companies should not pick and choose what healthcare your insurance should give you access to, otherwise they chould just veto anything a bit expensive. Some religious groups are opposed to organ donation. Jehovah's Witnesses don't agree with blood transfusions. Should these people prevent their employees having access to these medical services because they are 'against their religious beliefs'?

Again you have a situation where employers want control over issues in the lives of their employees unrelated to work, here imposing their religious beliefs upon the employee's access to medical care, irrespective of the employee's religious beliefs. The employee's medical needs should be confidential, the concern of the employer should be that staff return to work in a healthy condition as soon as possible.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 BlapBlapBlap wrote:
I have one point to make, one major point:

What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?

All those are major points points brought up by pro-choice advocates. Many are countered by "You can always put the child up for adoption"

But surely that doesn't deal with the psychiatric problems that may well remain, or bring either person physical health? Adoption is only a last resort, a safeguard to stop children suffering. People shouldn't lean heavily on it to make sure that a child that clearly cannot be sustained by their family or will possibly have trauma as they grow up or suffer from depression can be taken care of. I believe that just the ability to make the choice, as you are able to make with all medical procedures save emergency treatment, is all that is required by the company. To allow people the chance. Refusing to allow people the opportunity is, quite frankly, a very ignorant, suppressive action. Saying that the faith of the owners overrides what a person is allowed to decide to do with their own bodies because of insurance is ultimately very much a violation of the human right to proper medical care laid out in Article 25 of the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights.

Hobby Lobby is forced to violate their beliefs and I am happy that they are.

Of course it's not their Christian belief that they are being forced to violate. Instead they are being forced to violate their belief that these drugs cause abortions, and that is what makes me happy. Tired of folks like the Greens using pseudo-science and making up their own reality with things like this and using that as an excuse for this. I might even halfway understand if they were actually required to cover real abortion.

But should they be able to deny something because "I know medicine says that it's not abortion and science says it's not abortion, but I think it is and therefore I won't cover it". You can't make up your own facts, if we let that slide then what is next? No wonder people think that some of us Christians are dumb hillbillies...

 whembly wrote:

So... they shouldn't have their religious objections heard?

There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.

Just saying...

Hobby Lobby is not a religious organisation. It's a for-profit company that's intended to, y'know, make money. If they were, your argument would have some validity.

It's owners are Christians. They should not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on their 13,000 employees, and their company should follow the law, the hard way if need be.

That's really all there is to it. Hobby Lobby is not church, therefore it's not exempt from a lot of laws, this one included.

the thing that boggles my mind is this

why oh why do humans think "God" has human emotions? Like a "being" so powerful it can create with a thought has bad days, is vengeful, hates anything that doesn't bow to it?

I asked my religion teacher in 3rd grade if a boy who grew up somewhere that had never heard of Jesus lived a full life helping others and never did anything wrong dies what happens.

he said if you don't take Jesus as your savior then you go to hell

I told him he was wrong and I renounced my Christianity. "God" doesn't give two gaks about a name, actions speak louder than words

 Grey Templar wrote:

Yes there is. Its being forced to violate your beliefs.

I seriously doubt that any person who objects to birth control holds an emotive belief that specifically delineates between indirect support by way of an insurance policy, and indirect support by way of taxation.

 DIDM wrote:
the thing that boggles my mind is this

why oh why do humans think "God" has human emotions? Like a "being" so powerful it can create with a thought has bad days, is vengeful, hates anything that doesn't bow to it?

I asked my religion teacher in 3rd grade if a boy who grew up somewhere that had never heard of Jesus lived a full life helping others and never did anything wrong dies what happens.

he said if you don't take Jesus as your savior then you go to hell

I told him he was wrong and I renounced my Christianity. "God" doesn't give two gaks about a name, actions speak louder than words

I had a similar conversation after I met a Buddhist monk for the first time. It boggled my mind that such a good, kind and pious man would be sent to hell or any such punishment by any deity that claimed to be just and benevolent.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:I have one point to make, one major point:

What about the suffering of the mother and child? Say that the abortion is required to save both of them? What if the strain of bearing a child would permanently disable a person, or the child was being born into a family that couldn't support it? What if the employee had been a rape victim? Could you imagine existing as the child that resulted from that incidence, or having to raise a child whose father was running from the law?

Surely, it's human nature to stop suffering?

If you're a Christian, suffering is perfectly fine so long as it's the correct type of suffering.

KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 DIDM wrote:
the thing that boggles my mind is this

why oh why do humans think "God" has human emotions? Like a "being" so powerful it can create with a thought has bad days, is vengeful, hates anything that doesn't bow to it?

I asked my religion teacher in 3rd grade if a boy who grew up somewhere that had never heard of Jesus lived a full life helping others and never did anything wrong dies what happens.

he said if you don't take Jesus as your savior then you go to hell

I told him he was wrong and I renounced my Christianity. "God" doesn't give two gaks about a name, actions speak louder than words

I had a similar conversation after I met a Buddhist monk for the first time. It boggled my mind that such a good, kind and pious man would be sent to hell or any such punishment by any deity that claimed to be just and benevolent.

That's perhaps why Buddhists do not recognize concepts like "Hell" or "evil". If you're a dick, then you just get to wait outside until it's your turn again.

Can we stay on-topic?

Or are we already firmly entrenched in the debate about religions being stupid and should just go ahead and ask for a lock?

I sure wish we had NHS-style insurance in this country, is all I can say about this. Single payer, anyway. This linking insurance to your employer is dumb all around.

Bran Dawri wrote:

 whembly wrote:

So... they shouldn't have their religious objections heard?

There's a difference between paying taxes that may support birth control...
vs
Being forced to manage a plan providing these services against their religious beliefs.

Just saying...

Hobby Lobby is not a religious organisation. It's a for-profit company that's intended to, y'know, make money. If they were, your argument would have some validity.

It's owners are Christians. They should not be allowed to force their religious beliefs on their 13,000 employees, and their company should follow the law, the hard way if need be.

That's really all there is to it. Hobby Lobby is not church, therefore it's not exempt from a lot of laws, this one included.

So the owners of a company shouldn't be allowed to run their company in accordance with their beliefs, nor should they be allowed to "force" their beliefs on their employees, but the government/president obama can dictate to them his own beliefs and his employees can force upon them their own beliefs (or lack thereof) as they see fit?? The amount of double standard in your (and others with similar thoughts) thinking is frankly appalling and reeks of logical fallacy and thinly-veiled anti-religious sentiment.

Birth control is a luxury (and also forbidden by the bible) if you cant afford to practice safe sex then dont have sex, its really that simple

chaos0xomega wrote:

Birth control is a luxury (and also forbidden by the bible) if you cant afford to practice safe sex then dont have sex, its really that simple

Quoted for stupidity. How obnoxious.

If I trip in Hobby Lobby and I can sue the owner personally for all his money, then you might have a case.

But if I trip in Hobby Lobby I cannot sue the owner, I can only sue the company. Because the legal structure of the company protects the owner, Hobby Lobby is not the Greens and the Greens are not Hobby Lobby.

If the legal structure of the company protects the owners from actions against the company, then the legal structure of the company should also protect employees from the owners. You make a company to separate yourself from the liabilities, then you can't claim that the company is still you.

Whats obnoxious or stupid about it, the fact that its true? I actually meant to put non-procreational sex is a luxury, but the statement is still true by extension. Know how many times I had to turn down sex because I didnt have a condom on me? The options are accept the risks or play it safe. If you can't play it safe, and don't want to accept the risks then don't do it. The world won't end because you have to keep it in your pants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If I trip in Hobby Lobby and I can sue the owner personally for all his money, then you might have a case.

But if I trip in Hobby Lobby I cannot sue the owner, I can only sue the company. Because the legal structure of the company protects the owner, Hobby Lobby is not the Greens and the Greens are not Hobby Lobby.

If the legal structure of the company protects the owners from actions against the company, then the legal structure of the company should also protect employees from the owners. You make a company to separate yourself from the liabilities, then you can't claim that the company is still you.

I disagree with this analysis, while you are correct that there is a seperation, most companies subscribe to a moral and ethical code of conduct that may or may not be explicitly stated. From Hobby Lobbys mission statement it is pretty clear that the company follows a Christian moral/ethical code and ergo would be operating under the Christian belief system of its owners.

 Ouze wrote:
I sure wish we had NHS-style insurance in this country, is all I can say about this. Single payer, anyway. This linking insurance to your employer is dumb all around.

Agreed.

What does that make me?

The argument really is this: Does a PRIVATE owner of a business have a right to run his business as he sees fit (with accordance to the law of course) and does he have a right to offer whatever compensation he can in a given market.

So... before ya'll jump on my case, when has access to birth control pills and Plan B been really difficult?

It seems like we all have our priorities out of whack here...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chaos0xomega wrote:
Whats obnoxious or stupid about it, the fact that its true? I actually meant to put non-procreational sex is a luxury, but the statement is still true by extension. Know how many times I had to turn down sex because I didnt have a condom on me? The options are accept the risks or play it safe. If you can't play it safe, and don't want to accept the risks then don't do it. The world won't end because you have to keep it in your pants.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
If I trip in Hobby Lobby and I can sue the owner personally for all his money, then you might have a case.

But if I trip in Hobby Lobby I cannot sue the owner, I can only sue the company. Because the legal structure of the company protects the owner, Hobby Lobby is not the Greens and the Greens are not Hobby Lobby.

If the legal structure of the company protects the owners from actions against the company, then the legal structure of the company should also protect employees from the owners. You make a company to separate yourself from the liabilities, then you can't claim that the company is still you.

I disagree with this analysis, while you are correct that there is a seperation, most companies subscribe to a moral and ethical code of conduct that may or may not be explicitly stated. From Hobby Lobbys mission statement it is pretty clear that the company follows a Christian moral/ethical code and ergo would be operating under the Christian belief system of its owners.

ditto...

But I gotta say... sometimes, MY WORLD will crash if I don't let it out my pants... at least, that's what I tell the chicks.

You're basically saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed access to a healthy sex life. Your response (seeing as you see the challenge being that you don't always have condoms on you person when the opportunity arises) also seems to imply that you have more casual sex in mind, but even responsible married couples use contraception. Maybe coming from a £250k household you don't appreciate how even a small charge on medical things can be difficult over a long time.

Telling them they have to pay to have sex if they are not currently trying for children is just stupid. For a start, having sex for reasons other than procreation is healthy for a relationship. Telling people they just shouldn't, doesn't work, abstinence sex education never works either. Then unwanted children are a burden on parents and the state in the long run. It's just cheaper to supply contraception.

Then there's the total fail of thinking that people using contraception simply can't end up pregnant anyway. Which does happen if something interferes with the pill, or a condom splits.

So yes, your statement is obnoxious and illl informed.

And if a moral code is agains the law, then it is against the law.

Maybe part of what annoys me is that Hobby Lobby is based in a state that has already made it illegal to take your religious laws into consideration if you are Muslim. But this is okay, because they are wanting to pretend that a company can go to heaven and should follow a different religious law.

Thats what masturbation is for

Also worth noting that birth control != safe sex, some STD/STIs are still transmittable regardless. We still need better sex ed in this country, I personally feel that popular misconception about what constitutes safe sex and proper birth control usage ("Oh, you mean if I don't take the pill every day it stops working?" has been said by one too many people that I know.personally...) combined with free birth control will result in an upswing of stupid behavior...

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You're basically saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed access to a healthy sex life. Your response (seeing as you see the challenge being that you don't always have condoms on you person when the opportunity arises) also seems to imply that you have more casual sex in mind, but even responsible married couples use contraception. Maybe coming from a £250k household you don't appreciate how even a small charge on medical things can be difficult over a long time.

Telling them they have to pay to have sex if they are not currently trying for children is just stupid. For a start, having sex for reasons other than procreation is healthy for a relationship. Telling people they just shouldn't, doesn't work, abstinence sex education never works either. Then unwanted children are a burden on parents and the state in the long run. It's just cheaper to supply contraception.

Then there's the total fail of thinking that people using contraception simply can't end up pregnant anyway. Which does happen if something interferes with the pill, or a condom splits.

So yes, your statement is obnoxious and illl informed.

Um... how hard/easy is contraceptive (pills/condoms) is it to get in UK?

Here (the wimminz tell me dis ), it ain't that hard. Shoot, condoms are handed out in High School/Colleges.

 d-usa wrote:
And if a moral code is agains the law, then it is against the law.

Maybe part of what annoys me is that Hobby Lobby is based in a state that has already made it illegal to take your religious laws into consideration if you are Muslim. But this is okay, because they are wanting to pretend that a company can go to heaven and should follow a different religious law.

Not sure what the second half of that is in reference to,bt in regards to the first, by law of transmutive property you just said that christian beliefs are against the law...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
You're basically saying that poor people shouldn't be allowed access to a healthy sex life. Your response (seeing as you see the challenge being that you don't always have condoms on you person when the opportunity arises) also seems to imply that you have more casual sex in mind, but even responsible married couples use contraception. Maybe coming from a £250k household you don't appreciate how even a small charge on medical things can be difficult over a long time.

Telling them they have to pay to have sex if they are not currently trying for children is just stupid. For a start, having sex for reasons other than procreation is healthy for a relationship. Telling people they just shouldn't, doesn't work, abstinence sex education never works either. Then unwanted children are a burden on parents and the state in the long run. It's just cheaper to supply contraception.

Then there's the total fail of thinking that people using contraception simply can't end up pregnant anyway. Which does happen if something interferes with the pill, or a condom splits.

So yes, your statement is obnoxious and illl informed.

Contraception is not so expensive as to be out of reach of the poor, at least in the US. A pack of condoms is cheaper than a trip to mcdonalds, yet our nations poor seem to have no issue flocking to said eatery in droves. And lack of sex wont destroy a relationship, one of the best relationships I've ever seen is between two gay men who have never been sexually involved with eachother (he has AIDS and they dont want to risk infection regardless of protection). Also 250GBP/year? I wish, then I really would qualify as rich. Not that it matters, I pay for my own condoms anyway.