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.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Hobby Lobby made themselves a target for scrutiny. Not just with the SCOTUS case itself, but with all their actions to the contrary of their stated ideals.

"We don't want to give money towards abortion." - contributes and invests in companies that make these drugs.
"We don't believe in abortion." - almost all their inventory is made in China whose policies force over 13 million abortions a year, 5 times the US rate.
"Our Christian values are above all else." - sells religious everything made in China, manufactured by people under slave conditions under a regime that is extremely hostile to Christianity.

MMM yes much better if they treated their retail employees like Walmart or that big Democratic donor McDonalds.

Honestly, I have much more respect for McDonalds and Walmart. At least they have the common decency to be donkey-caves to everybody all the time. They are consistent and they are honest. You know what you get.

The Greens wrap themselves in the US flag and pages of the Bible, claiming that they love this country and Jesus while gaking on the very values that they pretend to care about.

Give me an honest donkey-cave over a hypocritical one any day of the week.

In Texas, pretty much all the line employees are illegal aliens, paid minimum wage, with no health benefits. Rememeber they were magically excluded from Obamacare requirements.

Which addresses anything that I said how?

Because you insanely think their business practices are better than Hobby Lobby which pays more, provides healthcare, and weekend time off.
Have you even worked in retail?

How do you get "they have better business practices than Hobby Lobby" out of that?

Because it's the only way he can possibly be even close to right in this argument.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Derp its the "I have much more respect for" thing derp. Seriously?

Yup. At least when a company declares "we hate you" you know where you stand. If a company makes it clear that they will treat you like gak you don't really have any right to be surprised by it. When they pretend to be all "we love Jesus and we do everything Jesus would do" before doing the opposite, then I really have a problem.

I don't respect them for being donkey-caves. I respect them for being honest about being donkey-caves.

But they're not being donkey-caves.

The Obama administration picked a fight. now the lefties are going after Hobby Lobby for daring to oppose them and are digging up any little event. Color me bored. They're not saints nor did they paint themselves out to be. But don't equate them with the buttholes of the universe employment wise just because they crossed your guy, in contrast to McDonalds which just paid them off.


I too will spend money at Hobby Lobby over Michaels, and Carls, and Chik Fil A. In fact they are opening a Chik Fil A right at the getoff of the houston House. I am excited. My arteries less so.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Because it's the only way he can possibly be even close to right in this argument.

Do they even have Hobby Lobbies in your country? if not why on earth are you even commenting.

EDIT: You already have (ok crappy) public health care. If you want to comment, help us get it too (but the much better Canadian style)

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Do some research on how companies pay for unemployment and how their unemployment taxes are calculated and you will find the answer.

Awesome, we're already at the Frazzled patented "I have no argument so I'm going to tell foreigners pointing out how wrong I am to stop commenting" phase.

Right on schedule.

This is an international forum, grow the feth up darling.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
Awesome, we're already at the Frazzled patented "I have no argument so I'm going to tell foreigners pointing out how wrong I am to stop commenting" phase.

Right on schedule.

He does have an argument... (not just the crusty old man-get off my lawn retort).

Succinctly stated:

The Obama administration picked a fight. now the lefties are going after Hobby Lobby for daring to oppose them and are digging up any little event. Color me bored. They're not saints nor did they paint themselves out to be.

No, he really didn't. That's why he made a strawman response to d-usa, to pretend he had one.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
No, he really didn't. That's why he made a strawman response to d-usa, to pretend he had one.

See my edit.

Actually... my re-edit. Jeeze, dakka is being weird to me lately.

See all of d-usa's posts.

Edit: And actually read and absorb what they say instead of ignoring it as per the norm.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
See all of d-usa's posts.

I did and responded. I think he has me on ignore.

*shrug*




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
See all of d-usa's posts.

Edit: And actually read and absorb what they say instead of ignoring it as per the norm.

Ain't ignoring it either, hence my response.

With your history of misrepresentation, posting gakky blogs with no real facts and just crap opinion pieces, are you surprised?

Edit: To be fair, you're nowhere near the worst. You're no BrassScorpion, at least you try to back it up.

All your responses are the usual posts of "everybody is doing it" "It's Obama's fault" and "they don't like Obama, so I'm supporting them".

No point replying to stuff that doesn't address anything that is actually relevant to the case.

They went to the SCOTUS because they don't want a single penny going to abortion, yet they invest in the companies that make the drugs..
"Everyone is doing it!"

They claim that there is nothing more important to them that the teachings of Jesus.
"Obama picked a fight!"

How to you even argue with something like that?

 MrDwhitey wrote:
No, he really didn't. That's why he made a strawman response to d-usa, to pretend he had one.

No thats my argument, I'm just also annoyed with a brit commenting when the sole British retailer I know of is GW. As a representative of the UK and thus GW, you should be ashamed sir... ASHAMED!

 MrDwhitey wrote:
With your history of misrepresentation, posting gakky blogs with no real facts and just crap opinion pieces, are you surprised?

But to reiterate Fraz's point.

Obama's HHS department picked this fight. Hobby Lobby chose to engage in this fight in the court and won. Want to back to the particulars of the case again, or would you rather take the summaries from whatever source you read from?

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Do some research on how companies pay for unemployment and how their unemployment taxes are calculated and you will find the answer.

But her time worked was never In question and therefore her base period would not have been affected by any "lies".

I mean, the only thing that could potentially be affected is her UI exempt status, which she wouldn't have appeared to qualify for anyway.

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Do some research on how companies pay for unemployment and how their unemployment taxes are calculated and you will find the answer.

But her time worked was never In question and therefore her base period would not have been affected by any "lies".

I mean, the only thing that could potentially be affected is her UI exempt status, which she wouldn't have appeared to qualify for anyway.

Do some research on how companies pay for unemployment and how their unemployment taxes are calculated and you will find the answer

 Frazzled wrote:

 MrDwhitey wrote:
No, he really didn't. That's why he made a strawman response to d-usa, to pretend he had one.

No thats my argument, I'm just also annoyed with a brit commenting when the sole British retailer I know of is GW. As a representative of the UK and thus GW, you should be ashamed sir... ASHAMED!

You should be ashamed of the drivel you routinely post, but it doesn't seem to be the case.

Is shame something they don't do in Texas, they replaced it all with bluster?

This thread is getting stupid. Im going to go watch bad Sci-fi

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Not giving a woman her job back when you said you would and also blocking her attempt to get benefits by lying?

What benefits did she have?? She worked there for less than 6 months... I can't think of a single place that you get full benefits from day one (in the private sector.... government employment is its own animal)

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This thread is getting stupid. Im going to go watch bad Sci-fi

I bet Starfleet lets women back in after they recover from childbirth

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
Saves money how? They're under no obligation to give her anything. And presumably they hired someone else to replace her when she was terminated.

Do some research on how companies pay for unemployment and how their unemployment taxes are calculated and you will find the answer.

But her time worked was never In question and therefore her base period would not have been affected by any "lies".

I mean, the only thing that could potentially be affected is her UI exempt status, which she wouldn't have appeared to qualify for anyway.

Do some research on how companies pay for unemployment and how their unemployment taxes are calculated and you will find the answer

Those are the only two potentials I'm seeing, my friend. Point out to me where I'm wrong or where else it would benefit them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Not giving a woman her job back when you said you would and also blocking her attempt to get benefits by lying?

What benefits did she have?? She worked there for less than 6 months... I can't think of a single place that you get full benefits from day one (in the private sector.... government employment is its own animal)

And she was a part timer. I don't know what people are expecting here.

 jasper76 wrote:

I bet Starfleet lets women back in after they recover from childbirth

Transporter technology makes childbirth an absolute breeze compared to the "old days"

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


Not giving a woman her job back when you said you would and also blocking her attempt to get benefits by lying?

What benefits did she have?? She worked there for less than 6 months... I can't think of a single place that you get full benefits from day one (in the private sector.... government employment is its own animal)

See, skilled people can demand full benefits from Day 1. I won't work for a company that doesn't take me in fully vested, regardless of their dumb HR policies. I am able to demand that. Unskilled workers...not so much.

 jasper76 wrote:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
This thread is getting stupid. Im going to go watch bad Sci-fi

I bet Starfleet lets women back in after they recover from childbirth

Pfft, we all know that in the optimistic Roddenbarry Future women give birth and go back to work the next day. I mean Troi did it

 d-usa wrote:
All your responses are the usual posts of "everybody is doing it"

It's legit.

"It's Obama's fault"

Technically, it's the Democrats who passed the PPACA is at fault for empowering the HHS department to makeup regulations on a whim.

and "they don't like Obama, so I'm supporting them".

It's irrelevant that they don't like Obama... they're defending what they believe is an incursion to their religious beliefs.

No point replying to stuff that doesn't address anything that is actually relevant to the case.

O.o YOU brought it up d... not me.

They went to the SCOTUS because they don't want a single penny going to abortion, yet they invest in the companies that make the drugs..
"Everyone is doing it!"

They didn't KNOWINGLY know they were investing in those companies. Had they have known, I'm sure they would've instructed their investiment company otherwise. You're making it sound like they have no legitimacy here on what's likely an HONEST mistake. You're engaging the same spin as any detractors of the SCOTUS case.

They claim that there is nothing more important to them that the teachings of Jesus.
"Obama picked a fight!"

??? Not sure I understand where you're coming from.

How to you even argue with something like that?

I just did.

 jasper76 wrote:

See, skilled people can demand full benefits from Day 1. I won't work for a company that doesn't take me in fully vested, regardless of their dumb HR policies. I am able to demand that. Unskilled workers...not so much.

Do you think they should be able to?

 cincydooley wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

See, skilled people can demand full benefits from Day 1. I won't work for a company that doesn't take me in fully vested, regardless of their dumb HR policies. I am able to demand that. Unskilled workers...not so much.

Do you think they should be able to?

Yes, IMO. Every person who is hired for a job should have access to 100% of their benefits on Day 1, and not play some silly waiting game that serves only the interest of the employer. You have stated that employers should have zero obligations to their employees (I wonder if this philosophy extends as far as pay and safety). Its pretty clear that on issues where employers are in conflict with labor, you tend to side with employers, and I tend to side with labor. I doubt its likely that either of us will change eachother's mind on issues of "should" when it comes to employment benefits.

100% access to benefits day one. That blows my mind.

 cincydooley wrote:
100% access to benefits day one. That blows my mind.

The fact that it blows my mind is why every other western nation looks at the US like we are crazy when they find out about our labor laws.

Sometimes I almost believe the old Soviet rhetoric about evil capitalist America and how they gak on the workers.

Why? What if 3 months later you get sick? "Oh we are sorry, but we cant help you, you only been here 3 months"

 d-usa wrote:
All your responses are the usual posts of "everybody is doing it" "It's Obama's fault" and "they don't like Obama, so I'm supporting them".

No point replying to stuff that doesn't address anything that is actually relevant to the case.

They went to the SCOTUS because they don't want a single penny going to abortion, yet they invest in the companies that make the drugs..
"Everyone is doing it!"

They claim that there is nothing more important to them that the teachings of Jesus.
"Obama picked a fight!"

How to you even argue with something like that?

And the whole point of your posting righteous indignation over a minor event that may or may not be an absolute lie is why again?

Oh yea, they disagreed with the Obama administration doing something that wasn't even in the law. Got it.