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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point is that just because Hobby Lobby is a Christian corporation they don't have to behave like Christians if it goes against their best profit interests.

They don't have to, that's for sure.

But if you model your public identity as a company around your adherence to religious dogma, then you can't really complain when your actions are evaluated against said dogma.

 d-usa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point is that just because Hobby Lobby is a Christian corporation they don't have to behave like Christians if it goes against their best profit interests.

They don't have to, that's for sure.

But if you model your public identity as a company around your adherence to religious dogma, then you can't really complain when your actions are evaluated against said dogma.

I'm just waiting until they claim back taxes or something on "religious" grounds.

When that happens you can quote JC himself at them: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's"

Will be a fun day

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

And the whole point of your posting righteous indignation over a minor event that may or may not ber 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.

Wrong.

It is because they used Jesus for their own personal gain while gaking on His teachings.

Er...no what personal gain? They spent hundreds of thousands on a lawsuit over a minor expense.

Which was cheaper than

a) medications for their employee base, or
b) paying the fines.

They already pay those. Again, you're thinking of McDonalds which managed to acvoid the issue by getting it waived after a little tangible graitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point is that just because Hobby Lobby is a Christian corporation they don't have to behave like Christians if it goes against their best profit interests.

The confused morality of the Capitalist Christian is something probably best left to psychotherapists.

And here we have your mens rea boys and girls.

Capitalist + Christians = bad?

*tries to figure out where he has defended a single damn thing McDonalds has done*

 Frazzled wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The point is that just because Hobby Lobby is a Christian corporation they don't have to behave like Christians if it goes against their best profit interests.

The confused morality of the Capitalist Christian is something probably best left to psychotherapists.

And here we have your mens rea boys and girls.

Not quite. The company's actions are moral or immoral....no reference to their religion is necessary.

I was just trying to point out that its probably useless to try and determine whether Hobby Lobby owners pursued their exemption on the basis of Christianity or capitalism. The two systems in their essences are almost diametrically opposed to one another, yet both are adhered to simultaneously by millions and millions, becasue the human brain is capable of compartmentalization.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Capitalist + Christians = bad?

No, I didn't mean that. Just that Capitalist Christianity is pretty close to an oxymoron.

 jasper76 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Capitalist + Christians = bad?

No, I didn't mean that. Just that Capitalist Christianity is pretty close to an oxymoron.

Then how does "Tough Love" figure in?

It's the parable of "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Again, we're probably not getting the whole picture and this whole thing is sensationalized to get us talking.

Ouze... is that you trying to fill out your bingo card?

 whembly wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Capitalist + Christians = bad?

No, I didn't mean that. Just that Capitalist Christianity is pretty close to an oxymoron.

Then how does "Tough Love" figure in?

It's the parable of "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

Did Hobby Lobby teach this woman to fish?

How does proto-socialism fit in to the Hobby Lobby business model? How can they simultaneously worship Jesus and Mammon? I don't know. That's my point. There's no use trying to figure out motives when the issue at hand is simply their actions.

 whitedragon wrote:
So...which is it? Is she a low wage schmuck running a till, or someone above the "low skilled employment game" because Hobby Lobby offered better benefits than their competition, prompting the person in question to apply there?

Doesn't matter. The point is that they have plenty of people that want to work there. She's easily replaceable

 whembly wrote:
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

If you gave that fish to Jesus he could feed 5000

<deleted...joke in bad taste>

 jasper76 wrote:
<deleted...joke in bad taste>

But but but...you gotta have Faith...




Edit

Damn you

Sorry, I'm trying to improve myself by not making fun of religion too much.

But any George Michael video stands on its own merits at the peak of sublimity, my friend!

As a gft in return:

 whembly wrote:
Ouze... is that you trying to fill out your bingo card?

I'm staying out of this thread - it's worse than most.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Ouze... is that you trying to fill out your bingo card?

I'm staying out of this thread - it's worse than most.

You misspelled "better". The high point was when we were told that Saturday isn't the weekend.

Or that "schmuck" - a patently offensive pejorative - is just a meaningless "filler" word.

 Ouze wrote:
Or that "schmuck" - a patently offensive pejorative - is just a meaningless "filler" word.

Patently offensive? Seriously?

 Ouze wrote:
Or that "schmuck" - a patently offensive pejorative - is just a meaningless "filler" word.

Quiet Schmu...

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Or that "schmuck" - a patently offensive pejorative - is just a meaningless "filler" word.

Patently offensive? Seriously?

Yeah, that's about offensive as calling someone a chump or dweeb.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Or that "schmuck" - a patently offensive pejorative - is just a meaningless "filler" word.

Patently offensive? Seriously?

it is a pejorative insult by any definition you care to use, either from it's original meaning or it's watered down contemporary one. The idea that it's a "filler" word is laughable and the fact that you're apparently going to pretend it is anyway is exactly why this thread is a enormous waste of time for everyone involved.

Sounds like an insult from an old 50's TV show/movie.

 whembly wrote:

It's the parable of "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

I always hated that parable because teaching a man to fish enables him to, potentially, feed himself; the teacher does not feed the man the man feeds himself.

Additionally, it is possible give a man a fish and teach him to fish; indeed giving a man a fish may be an incentive for him to learn how to fish.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
Or that "schmuck" - a patently offensive pejorative - is just a meaningless "filler" word.

Patently offensive? Seriously?

Yeah, that's about offensive as calling someone a chump or dweeb.

So are those patently offensive too? Maybe my "offend-o-meter" isn't calibrated a bit higher than ya'll's.

And FYI, the thread is a waste of time because she wasn't entitled to her job back in the first place.

If we want to discuss what is apparently a growing trend toward arbitration, then I'm open to that. I think both d-USA and Jasper have valid points about some Christian moral imperative in this instance (even if I disagree), as well. But I don't think they had any obligation to hire her back, and with only one (very lopsided and biased) side of the story, I don't know how much more there is to discuss about this particular instance.

But please, let's stop pretending hobby lobby is the only company in the us that has a discrimination claim brought against them. They've just become a favorite target of the media because they chose to challenge the ACA mandate.

I find it funny some of you all are using words that are damn near relic

@cincy my point was that "schmuck" isn't much of an insult as far as I'm aware, although maybe it has a lot worse connotations than I'm aware of.

 cincydooley wrote:

So are those patently offensive too? Maybe my "offend-o-meter" isn't calibrated a bit higher than ya'll's.

They are at the very least pejorative. Whether or not they offend you is a personal matter.

 cincydooley wrote:

And FYI, the thread is a waste of time because she wasn't entitled to her job back in the first place.

If her supervisor truly did insinuate that she could have her job back, that's a problem. It may be a problem limited to that location, but it is still a problem.

 cincydooley wrote:

But please, let's stop pretending hobby lobby is the only company in the us that has a discrimination claim brought against them. They've just become a favorite target of the media because they chose to challenge the ACA mandate.

Well, no. This story popped up because Hobby Lobby has engaged in hypocrisy regarding it's apparent religious beliefs. Basically proving that it is a Christian corporation so long as it suits their bottom line, a serious issue with their objection to PPACA.

 dogma wrote:


If her supervisor truly did insinuate that she could have her job back, that's a problem. It may be a problem limited to that location, but it is still a problem.

It's all her word right now, so we really only have half the story, and like I've said a few times before, I'm sure her take is only party true (as would Hobby Lobby's) And personally, I'm not sure that I'd expect my "supervisor" to be the end all, be all for something regarding FMLA. I know for my paternity leave, it's pretty much all gone through our HR dept.

Well, no. This story popped up because Hobby Lobby has engaged in hypocrisy regarding it's apparent religious beliefs. Basically proving that it is a Christian corporation so long as it suits their bottom line, a serious issue with their objection to PPACA.

Which begs the question, "how far does Christian charity extend or how far should it extend?" Clearly some of you think it should extend further, and some of us don't. I don't think it automatically makes them hypocritical.

 cincydooley wrote:

 dogma wrote:


If her supervisor truly did insinuate that she could have her job back, that's a problem. It may be a problem limited to that location, but it is still a problem.

It's all her word right now, so we really only have half the story, and like I've said a few times before, I'm sure her take is only party true (as would Hobby Lobby's) And personally, I'm not sure that I'd expect my "supervisor" to be the end all, be all for something regarding FMLA. I know for my paternity leave, it's pretty much all gone through our HR dept.

Well, no. This story popped up because Hobby Lobby has engaged in hypocrisy regarding it's apparent religious beliefs. Basically proving that it is a Christian corporation so long as it suits their bottom line, a serious issue with their objection to PPACA.

Which begs the question, "how far does Christian charity extend or how far should it extend?" Clearly some of you think it should extend further, and some of us don't. I don't think it automatically makes them hypocritical.

Ack..you forget being a Christian is a bad thing to some people

 cincydooley wrote:
I think both d-USA and Jasper have valid points about some Christian moral imperative in this instance (even if I disagree), as well.

Just to make my position clear, I did not make this point (perhaps d-USA did). I believe Hobby Lobby should have (and should, today, right now) hired this woman back on the basis of modern morality. If that coincides with aspects of Christian morality, it is purely coincidence as far as my argument goes. While I acknowledge Christianity has contributed to our modern moral zeitgeist, I believe the Christian worldview on the whole is fundamentally immoral.

 jasper76 wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:
I think both d-USA and Jasper have valid points about some Christian moral imperative in this instance (even if I disagree), as well.

Just to make my position clear, I did not make this point (perhaps d-USA did). I believe Hobby Lobby should have (and should, today, right now) hired this woman back on the basis of modern morality. If that coincides with aspects of Christian morality, it is purely coincidence as far as my argument goes. While I acknowledge Christianity has contributed to our modern moral zeitgeist, I believe the Christian worldview on the whole is fundamentally immoral.

I only say that the Christian view applies in this situation because the Greens argued in court, in interview, and in marketing, that they and Hobby Lobby are driven by nothing other than pure Christian morals and Biblical values.

Not because I think employers should act Christian, but because they argue that they would never do anything unchristian.